A controversial notice of motion from deputy mayor Chris Doohan calling for a 12-month moratorium on pre-approvals to remove trees that are considered a risk to human life or property was approved at last Tuesday's Port Stephens Council meeting.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Councillors also resolved to develop and roll out an education program in addition to supporting material to clarify tree removal requirements and exemptions during the 12-month moratorium.
However, before the moratorium can be executed, the council would need to amend its Development Control Plan by placing the proposal on exhibition for community consultation and submissions - which could take some months.
A call by Cr Giacomo Arnott for more time to research the issue in order to prevent an "unrestricted free for all" failed to get sufficient support.
"No major emergency has occurred to justify this proposal, and I remain extremely skeptical," he said.
"This proposal should have been deferred. Councillors clearly need more information, more statistics, and more background about why this action is needed. There is no evidence that the system as it currently stands, with multiple exemptions for people so that they can remove dangerous trees, isn't working."
Cr Doohan said that he had received calls from Port Stephens residents concerned about dangerous trees following the most recent storm.
"A moratorium, similar to that approved by council after the 2015 superstorm, will provide residents the opportunity to remove dangerous trees in a safe manner and without the red tape," he said.
Cr Paul Le Mottee said that it was impossible for residents to identify dangerous trees, particularly in times of severs wind and storm activity.
"During the 2015 superstorm there were an overwhelming number of healthy trees uprooted ... it was only good fortune that more homes in Mount Hall Road [Raymond Terrace] escaped damage by trees due to the direction of the wind."
Cr Ken Jordan added that the last moratorium had worked successfully, despite concerns from many in the community that it would promote a free for all of tree removal.
"There is also the outlay involved, removing trees is a costly exercise."
Cr John Nell has also questioned the need for a moratorium.
"The more trees you remove the more you change the climate," he warned.
An amendment signed by councillors Arnott and Nell called for "a report be prepared outlining the current process for dangerous tree removal, including expected time frames, expected cost to residents, and any barriers which hinder residents' access to existing approval exemptions for dangerous trees. This report should include an outline of any successes and failings of the 2015-16 tree moratorium".
When it received no support, the councillors voted in favour of the motion.
In a background report provided to councillors, environment section manager Steve Peart stipulated the circumstances in which council consent permission, or approval would be required, for the removal or pruning of trees and vegetation in non-rural areas.
"[The DCP] states that applicants wishing to clear or remove trees will also need to consider the provisions of other legislation that governs tree and vegetation management.
"Approval is not required where a tree poses a high risk that cannot be adequately mitigated by arboricultural treatments, or where a tree is significantly affecting structures including utility services, footpaths, driveways, retaining walls and/or buildings; where an applicant claims a tree poses an unacceptable risk to human health; or where the tree is within 10 metres of a home."
A tree moratorium would require a DCP amendment to be exhibited for 28 days, the report stared.
"Opportunities exist for further education of the community through the provision of structured education programs and supporting material."
