๐ป๐ณโ Yesterday an SMH article stated that Ku-ring-gai had an 8.20% reduction in urban canopy over three years from 2019 (52.01%) to 2022 (43.81%). Some people have asked me to comment, so I will say the following.
I wouldn’t be surprised by a small decrease but an 8.20% reduction over three years is a LOT and I have not seen this scale of loss on the ground. Remember that these statistics are estimates so if there are changes to underlying assumptions or data sources, or an error in modelling, then it can lead to a wild swing. Our council staff are looking into the details to further understand what has driven the swing.
Though even if the 2022 statistics are correct, Ku-ring-gai still has the greatest coverage out of the Sydney Metro councils with Hornsby as a close #2 at 42.47%.
In November 2023 Council resolved to increase resourcing on education, establish a hotline, and provide 7-day week coverage of tree investigations. But having more people on the ground can only go so far, in part because the on-the-spot fines of $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for corporations are hardly a deterrent. Councils have lobbied the State Government to update Schedule 5 of its Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation to support greater on-the-spot penalties, but to date there has been no change.
Councils also have the option to commence legal proceedings against an offender which in theory acts as a greater deterrent with fines of up to $1.1m for corporations and up to $220,000 for individuals. But in reality, this rarely occurs because there is a higher burden of proof and most councils do not have the extensive resources to investigate and litigate. A tree may be poisoned but unless council is able to prove who poisoned it, thereโs nobody to pursue.
The owner may have obtained a tree permit from council (refer to Part 13 of Councilโs Development Control Plans). Part 13 also provides exemptions for tree and vegetation works, such as when removing dead wood, removing tree branches within 0.5m of electrical wires, removing branches overhanging a residence, and the removal of weed species.
The owner may also have exemption from the State Government under its 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Scheme, which allows people living in bushfire prone areas to clear trees within 10m of their homes and vegetation within 50m of their homes.
The owner may have permission as part of a DA consent. Usually these come with requirements for replacement planting elsewhere on site but the replacement trees take time to grow.
Extreme weather events may also lead to reduction in tree canopy. In November 2019 we had extreme weather causing trees to fall and triggering multi-day blackouts. While new trees are planted to replace the old ones, these take time to grow.
If you look at Ku-ring-gai, many of the current low density residential homes sit on 800-1,200 sqm of land with the more established plots capable of supporting over a dozen trees of various sizes. But as the population increases, governments face the dilemma of building out (and clearing lots of trees in the process) or building up in established areas (which involves clearing a smaller number of trees per person).
In the coming months, the entire state will see changes in State law that allow more homes to be established on smaller plots of land. If you look at page 42 of the proposed changes (which includes more homes everywhere with dual occupancy as the minimum uplift), the tree canopy targets and tree planting rates are quite low compared to what we currently have in Ku-ring-gai.
From a council perspective, we are increasing resources to improve education and investigate tree crimes, however this will not entirely prevent people from conducting illegal activity.
If you are dissatisfied with the situation, consider lobbying the State Government for change. To be effective deterrents, the penalties for on-the-spot fines need to increase. You may also want to provide the State Government with feedback on its proposed changes to the housing system (see page 5 of the link above). In the coming weeks and as residents return from holidays, council will provide more information on the proposed changes and public feedback process.
๐ป๐ณโ Yesterday an SMH article stated that Ku-ring-gai had an 8.20% reduction in urban canopy over three years from 2019 (52.01%) to 2022 (43.81%). Some people have asked me to comment, so I will say the following.
๐ญ. ๐ช๐ฒ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ถ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐.
I wouldn’t be surprised by a small decrease but an 8.20% reduction over three years is a LOT and I have not seen this scale of loss on the ground. Remember that these statistics are estimates so if there are changes to underlying assumptions or data sources, or an error in modelling, then it can lead to a wild swing. Our council staff are looking into the details to further understand what has driven the swing.
Though even if the 2022 statistics are correct, Ku-ring-gai still has the greatest coverage out of the Sydney Metro councils with Hornsby as a close #2 at 42.47%.
๐ฎ. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ผ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ.
And there is scope to improve.
In November 2023 Council resolved to increase resourcing on education, establish a hotline, and provide 7-day week coverage of tree investigations. But having more people on the ground can only go so far, in part because the on-the-spot fines of $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for corporations are hardly a deterrent. Councils have lobbied the State Government to update Schedule 5 of its Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation to support greater on-the-spot penalties, but to date there has been no change.
Councils also have the option to commence legal proceedings against an offender which in theory acts as a greater deterrent with fines of up to $1.1m for corporations and up to $220,000 for individuals. But in reality, this rarely occurs because there is a higher burden of proof and most councils do not have the extensive resources to investigate and litigate. A tree may be poisoned but unless council is able to prove who poisoned it, thereโs nobody to pursue.
๐ฏ. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ผ ๐๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ผ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐ด๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐น๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ.
The owner may have obtained a tree permit from council (refer to Part 13 of Councilโs Development Control Plans). Part 13 also provides exemptions for tree and vegetation works, such as when removing dead wood, removing tree branches within 0.5m of electrical wires, removing branches overhanging a residence, and the removal of weed species.
The owner may also have exemption from the State Government under its 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Scheme, which allows people living in bushfire prone areas to clear trees within 10m of their homes and vegetation within 50m of their homes.
The owner may have permission as part of a DA consent. Usually these come with requirements for replacement planting elsewhere on site but the replacement trees take time to grow.
Extreme weather events may also lead to reduction in tree canopy. In November 2019 we had extreme weather causing trees to fall and triggering multi-day blackouts. While new trees are planted to replace the old ones, these take time to grow.
๐ฐ. ๐จ๐ฟ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป๐ผ๐ฝ๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฝ๐๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ.
If you look at Ku-ring-gai, many of the current low density residential homes sit on 800-1,200 sqm of land with the more established plots capable of supporting over a dozen trees of various sizes. But as the population increases, governments face the dilemma of building out (and clearing lots of trees in the process) or building up in established areas (which involves clearing a smaller number of trees per person).
In the coming months, the entire state will see changes in State law that allow more homes to be established on smaller plots of land. If you look at page 42 of the proposed changes (which includes more homes everywhere with dual occupancy as the minimum uplift), the tree canopy targets and tree planting rates are quite low compared to what we currently have in Ku-ring-gai.
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/eie-changes-to-create-low-and-mid-rise-housing.pdf#page=42
๐ฑ. ๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ผ ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ถ๐?
From a council perspective, we are increasing resources to improve education and investigate tree crimes, however this will not entirely prevent people from conducting illegal activity.
If you are dissatisfied with the situation, consider lobbying the State Government for change. To be effective deterrents, the penalties for on-the-spot fines need to increase. You may also want to provide the State Government with feedback on its proposed changes to the housing system (see page 5 of the link above). In the coming weeks and as residents return from holidays, council will provide more information on the proposed changes and public feedback process.
