|
|
 Posted Thursday, 2 April 2009 1:10 PM |
|
|
Forum Newbie
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, 28 August 2009 4:57 PM
Posts: 1,
Visits: 7
|
|
| Developers don't have to bulldoze a VPO listed tree. They can damage it, neglect it and let it die with impunity and certainly with the tacit consent of Council officers . Let me give an example. Some years ago a prime inner suburban development site came onto the market. It had been owned by a church and had been a school playground since the 1920s. There was a large weeping fig on the site which had been planted as a shade tree for the school children, and in its maturity had become a most appealing feature of the neighbourhood as well as being much loved by the native flying foxes, birds and possums. In response to community representations a VPO was attached to the tree in advance of its sale. No doubt this lessened the value of the land but it nevertheless was sold to one brave (or knowledgeable) developer who took up the challenge. Within a very short space of months a plan for a multi unit development was steered through the BCC development process and was approved. The approval ostensibly had regard to community concerns and great care was to be taken with the tree. A fence was to be built around the drip line and no equipment was to be stored within the tree zone. There was to be no excavation within the tree area and no vehicles and plant were to enter the site near the tree. There were other conditions as well. All these conditions were brazenly flouted. Community complaints were fobbed off by the very Council officers who were supposed to uphold and enforce the approval conditions. One Council officer explained that some of the conditions would make the development unviable and would therefore not be enforced. Such arrogance! The local Councillor attempted to intervene but seems to have been treated like the rest of us - mushrooms. We had to stand by and watch massive roots being ripped up, which could only damage any tree. Plainly the tree was a nuisance to the developer both in terms of adding to construction costs, and in future co existence of unit owners with the tree's resident wildlife - a swimming pool had been built almost directly below the tree which would have had interesting impact from the once large fruit bat colony residing in the tree; and tree branches swept directly by apartment balconies. But predictably, the tree started to weaken. The once dense green canopy began to thin and turn an unhealthy yellowish hue and bare branches began to appear. the Council's arborist continued to maintain that the tree was in good health but some setback was to be expected in view of the development footprint. Who approved that footprint, one might ask. He felt the tree would continue to lose canopy in the short term but would recover in, say, two years. That smacks of buying time! But the tree now is clearly failing and this has finally been acknowledged even by the Arborist. He bravely says he can still save the once magnificant tree but there is a further stumbling block: the developer now won't allow access to the site. I thought the tree had a VPO! This whole episode is shameful and shows a woeful lack of accountability and responsibility by all concerned. A development should never have been permitted which impacts on a VPO listed tree and in any case all approval conditions should always have been strictly enforced. There should have been a substantial bond attached to the tree. I have no confidence in the arborist's opinion and believe the tree, sadly, is now in its death throes.
|
|
|
|
| Posted Monday, 20 October 2008 8:51 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Hi Melissa and thanks for your prompt reply and honesty. I fear for our Koalas, Squirrel Gliders and Tusked Frogs and all the other animals in the area that are not yet on the endangered or threatened list Richard K - wish you were here. I can't believe our leaders get away with these things un-noticed. Maybe the Greens have been saying it but I haven't heard. Where is the media to expose what goes on? In 20 years time we will be going to zoos to see native Australian animals - maybe there will be Australia zoos in every region to try to keep species alive. What a wonderful world, Jane 
|
|
|
|
| Posted Saturday, 18 October 2008 12:55 AM |
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, 18 October 2008 1:45 AM
Posts: 5,
Visits: 10
|
|
| If there is no enforcement of VPOs what good are they? If there are no consequences to destroying protected plants what is going to deter people from destroying the protected plants. We have similar problems here in the United States. One day I came home to find some one cutting branches on a tree that abuts my property. The tree was in a common area, i.e. property of the homeowners association. The branches being trimmed were almost entirely over my property. My neighbors evidently complained that the branches were obscuring their view of my house. Before trimming, cutting down or planting any trees we are suppose to get permission from our Homeowners Board of Directors. Part of the process is getting permission from the specific homeowners that are going to be impacted -- in this case me. Needless to say no one consulted with me before cutting the branches. There are lot more flagrant examples of people defying ordinances protected vegetation. One wealthy property owner cut down hundreds of trees in a national park that abuts his property. The National Park Service opted not to take any action. The local government did take some action. Another incident involved some one wanting to cut down dozens of large hickory nut trees and oak trees on his property. His pretense was that his kids were allergic to the nuts from the trees. It really is interesting to read the posts on this forum and see many of the same problems we have here in the U.S. also occurring in Australia. Richard
|
|
|
|
| Posted Friday, 17 October 2008 11:00 AM |
|
|
Avid Contributor
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Friday, 1 May 2009 3:04 PM
Posts: 51,
Visits: 524
|
|
| Hi Jane, I have checked back with the Environmental team and yes this is correct.
Project Officer - Community Engagement Team
|
|
|
|
| Posted Friday, 17 October 2008 6:33 AM |
|
|
|
|
| so what is the point of the BCC having laws on this? I can imagine how frustrated that section of BCC must be because I am sure they are actually very dedicated to protecting the environment. Shame.
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, 16 October 2008 12:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Thanks Melissa, but I am still a little unclear. This is people's privately owned land. I suppose you mean that when the Govt forceably resumes their private land it becomes the property of the State Govt and then the State Govt can bulldoze that previously protected land and the BCC is powerless to do anything to stop it. If I have this wrong, can you advise. Cheers, Jane
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, 16 October 2008 11:51 AM |
|
|
Avid Contributor
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Friday, 1 May 2009 3:04 PM
Posts: 51,
Visits: 524
|
|
| Brisbane City Council's Natural Assets Local Law (which incorporates the former Vegetation Protection Orders) does not apply to Commonwealth or State Government land holdings. Unfortunately this is a legal situation that Council has no control over. Some Commonwealth and State Government lands have been captured by Council under the Local Law where there is potential for the land to be sold in the future. When this land is sold to a private party the Natural Assets Local Law would comes into effect. Council does in some situations have an opportunity to comment on State Government works or development. Council uses these opportunities to argue for outcomes that avoid clearing of significant vegetation where possible or put in place optimal 'offsets' to compensation as much as possible. I hope that this answers your question 
Project Officer - Community Engagement Team
|
|
|
|
| Posted Wednesday, 15 October 2008 7:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
| thanks Melissa, appreciate your time
|
|
|
|
| Posted Wednesday, 15 October 2008 9:21 AM |
|
|
Avid Contributor
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Friday, 1 May 2009 3:04 PM
Posts: 51,
Visits: 524
|
|
| Hi everyone, I will have some information to provide you with tomorrow. Apologies for not being able to contribute a response any sooner.
Project Officer - Community Engagement Team
|
|
|
|
| Posted Tuesday, 14 October 2008 10:17 PM |
|
|
|
|
| that is what I want to know too. I am hoping the BCC can explain this to us.
|
|
|
|
| Posted Monday, 13 October 2008 7:02 AM |
|
|
|
|
| So how can VPO's be ignored by Govt if they are a BCC local ordinance?
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, 9 October 2008 7:54 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Hi A VPO is a Vegetation Protection Ordinance. Basically VPO's are conditions given to private land owners in Brisbane about what they can and cannot do with their land. Their are 5 levels (I think). The lowest being they can't touch one significant tree. The highest that they were unable to interfere with their bushland in any way. For example not remove dead branches or undergrowth. It has resulted in some wild bushand that the wildlife love on private property. I believe BCC has prosecuted people who breached the VPO's. This is why I want to know the answer to my question.
|
|
|
|
| Posted Sunday, 5 October 2008 11:40 PM |
|
|
Active Forum Participant
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, 6 October 2008 12:01 AM
Posts: 8,
Visits: 7
|
|
What's a VPO? Thanks.
Towards a sustainable future! Be what you want to see.
|
|
|
|
| Posted Sunday, 21 September 2008 5:08 PM |
|
|
|
|
| BCC please explain why your representatives don't object to the Qld Govt bulldozes private and publicly owned bushland corridors that have your full VPO's on them and were the first properties in Brisbane to have full VPO's when BCC introduced them. I would like to try to understand this position.
|
|