Moyne Shire Council avoids answers over Koroit tree removals

The two large eucalypts were chopped down in Clarke Street on July 24, "devastating" neighbours and bringing one resident to tears. Half a dozen neighbours complained and the council said it would complete an investigation into what had happened.

But the council's account of the investigation has left crucial details unanswered.

In an October 4 letter to resident Ross Maloney, the council's environment, economy and place director Jodie McNamara said "council's planning compliance officer had undertaken a thorough review" of the process.

Ms McNamara said the trees had been removed "in relation to a subdivision at 316 Lake View Rd". She said the permit for the development triggered a stormwater management plan, which suggested upgrading the drainage along Clarke Street.

"It was considered that the upgrade could potentially affect the trees and in order to determine the extent of that effect, an arborist's report was requested," Ms McNamara said.

"Following a detailed on-site assessment - by a qualified independent arboricultural consultant - that report determined that the trees could pose a hazard and it was recommended that they be removed.

"Relevant council staff reviewed the arborist's report, including the works supervisor open space, who is also a qualified arborist, and accepted the recommendations therein."

But The Standard obtained a copy of the arborist report, which stated the trees "may" pose a hazard in "extreme weather events", but this wasn't grounds for removing them. It said the proposed location of the stormwater culvert would "structurally compromise" the trees and "significantly damage" their root system, and in light of the position of the culvert the trees would have to be removed.

Melbourne University arboricultural expert Greg Moore also read the arborist report and confirmed the proposed culvert was the justification for removing the trees. "The arborist has been very careful to say the trees aren't unsafe," he said.

The arborist report was commissioned and paid for by the developer and it remains unclear when it was submitted to the council. The Standard asked the council whether it had only read the report after the trees had already been chopped down, but it refused to answer.

Dr Moore said standard practice for a council receiving a report advising the removal of "significant" trees would be to send its own staff to the site to corroborate the report's conclusions.

The Standard asked the council whether it did this, but it refused to answer.

Dr Moore said the next thing you would do is estimate the value of the trees .

"It would be normal in that process to put a value on those trees," he said.

"There is an Arboriculture Australia minimum industry standard framework for doing that. It's easy as wink for an arborist."

Dr Moore said valuing the trees would have allowed a cost-benefit analysis of relocating the culvert.

"Say it costs $20,000 extra to put the culvert and services on the other side of the street, but the trees are worth $40,000. You would be amazed at the alternative options that start emerging once a value is put on the assets," he said.

The Standard asked the council whether the trees had been valued or whether there was any discussion of alternative locations for the culvert before the removal of the trees, but it did not respond.

A council spokesperson said "our investigation has found correct process and procedure has been followed".

But Dr Moore said the developer hadn't even produced the right kind of arborist report. "What they should have asked for is a tree risk assessment, but what they got was a tree inspection," he said.

"A tree risk assessment is much more rigorous and has strict protocols that will stand up in court. There's a big difference."

He said similar tree removals were "common" in regional Victoria.

"If something improper has occurred, the council needs to pursue compensation for the full value of the assets lost," he said.

"If, on the other hand, they were removed with council approval then the first question is why did the council grant that permission and what kind of compensation calculation was done."

Mr Maloney said the council's refusal to clarify who had made an error was an attempt to "run for cover".

"Can people just blatantly flout the regulations now with no consequences?" he said. "Is the council going to issue an apology for what's happened here?

"All I've asked for in all this is some answers, but the council won't even show the respect of a full response."

The council did concede the developer had failed to get a works within road reserves permit before cutting down the trees, but wouldn't say what penalty, if any, had been applied.

"Council will work with residents and the developer to replace the trees with semi-mature stock when the development allows," the spokesperson said.

IN OTHER LOCAL NEWS:

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can access our trusted content: