Gum Tree Removal - Significant Landscape Overlay SLO9

nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 14:57

I was hoping someone can provide advice/suggestions. We are interested in a property to buy and later on build, however it has 2 huge gum trees in the front (see photo). Because the property is under Significant Landscape Overlay SLO9 and has an established tree within the perimeter, I’m guessing the council will not allow us to remove the trees. Is this correct? I understand we have to go through the formal process for council approval but was wondering if it is even worth pursuing the property. The agent mentioned if it weren't for the trees then the property would have been at least 100k more. I would be keen to know the thoughts of any builders/developers in this forum. Thank you for any ideas/suggestions.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/af196kabfqecw4x/Screen%20Shot%2020…

Home & Garden

Comments

  • brendanm on 21/02/2021 - 15:09
    +8

    If the agents lips are moving, they are likely lying. In saying that, if they could get another $100k for the place, and removing the trees was possible, don't you think they would have done this?

    • pharkurnell on 21/02/2021 - 15:11

      specially for another 100k…

      • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 15:45

        Exactly! That's what we're thinking too. The vendor is an old lady so perhaps she didn't want to go through the troubles.

    • snooksy on 22/02/2021 - 10:27
      +2

      I totally doubt removing the trees will add $100k to the price. Those trees will shade the roof in summer and reduce your cooling bills a bit. I’m not sure of Whitehorse rules but in some areas you are able to remove all tree within 10m of property to reduce fire risk. You are probably looking about $15k to $20k to remove those trees and that’s probably the difference in value. Honestly I don’t think those trees are a problem. You haven’t really stated why you want to remove them? They add a bit of character and you could create a native front garden so they blend in a bit. I think the front area looks a bit bare anyway. To save our planet we need to plant more trees to soak up CO2. Those big trees serve as a safe place for birds and other animals to defend against neighbourhood cats etc. Those trees have value besides obvious monetary value.

  • pharkurnell on 21/02/2021 - 15:11
    +1

    What area/council - they are all different

    • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 15:46

      Whitehorse

      • spal on 21/02/2021 - 18:15

        Well this is the most important information. Research planning issues with Whitehorse council. Think what are you planning on doing with the land. If other than renovating you are not planning on doing anything then there isn’t any issue. However if you are planning on developing multiple units then maybe first speak with an experienced town planner on your chances. If the trees are in the front setback, then I don’t see much issues. Leave the trees there and plan something with them. Look at properties sold in the area with similar planning outcome you are looking to achieve. You might find approved plans included with the listing. Find the name of the planner from these drawings and consult them.

        • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 22:42

          thanks. We just want to build our own house in near future. The agent said because of these huge gum trees the property has been advertised for less than the market value. Perhaps he is lying however everyone else who inspected the property questioned about the trees. It is basically the stand out feature of the house from the outside in a way. This makes us think that in future if we were to sell the property then will we have to advertise for less as well if the trees were to stay.

          • spal on 22/02/2021 - 18:15

            @nayanmodi: I have a feeling that it is the agent’s marketing gimmick to attract more buyers looking for a bargain. He is probably under quoting the price on this ground. So, if someone complained after the sale to CAV he will give it as his reason. Wait and watch when the property sells for higher than the quoted price range.
            For a single house large you should be able to build something very nice and still keep the trees. If you are concerned about the trees then look for something else.

  • fantombloo on 21/02/2021 - 15:20
    +12

    I hope you don't get the place, or if you do you, are not allowed to remove the trees.

    There are plenty of places available without trees - get one of those and leave those with trees for people who want trees.

    There may be good reasons for removing trees - you haven't presented any.

    • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 15:54

      Trees especially such a big tree like this could be a potential hazard. One scenario could be a lightning strike and the branch could potentially fall on the roof and cause some major damage. I like trees but it is massive and there are two of these!

      • fantombloo on 21/02/2021 - 16:02
        +14

        Cool. Don't like that risk? Buy somewhere else and leave it for people who don't mind that risk.

        Large extant trees are part of the natural landscape and like other natural features they deserve special consideration before being removed. They belong to the community, not just an individual. Your wanting to make some money or build a bigger house is not a good reason to alter the landscape if the community doesn't agree. Not happy? Go find a community that doesn't care, or try persuading this community about your opinion on the trees rather than looking for ways to undermine them.

        • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 17:36

          thanks. Just doing my due diligence. That's it!

        • lgacb08 on 21/02/2021 - 22:02

          i don't have problem with trees, I do love them to an extend. But trees that big should not belong there, they should live their happy life on a 20 hectares rural property or mcmansion, whichever you like to call it, along with others gumtrees. Councils are the greedy one that want to have their cake and eat it too when they agree to most development or subdivision but at the same time wanting to make their neighbourhood looks green.

      • snooksy on 22/02/2021 - 10:30
        +2

        Not really… 1 in a million or less chance of lightning hitting a branch. Home insurance will cover that if it happens anyway. Those trees will still be standing long after the residents move out as long as they don’t cut them down. A dead branch may fall every few seasons but it’s normally a simple job to cut it up. I have 10 large trees in front of my house and I’ve had one branch fall in 5 years. No significant damage, one broken roof tile.

      • Techie4066 on 22/02/2021 - 21:17

        Oh. Dear. I had lightning strike a 30m tall tree around 20 metres from my house during an intense storm in 2014, busting a PC, TV, hot water heater and other appliances. Lights went out. A few hundred metres away had their surge protectors activate and some appliances break. It was incredibly deafening and the tree died.

        The incredibly rare chance of that occurring shouldn't be a reason for cutting down trees, that is nature doing its thing, end of discussion. Anthropogenic climate change will be an existential crisis in the next century. We should focus on keeping our koalas and reefs alive before 2050.

    • Almost Banned on 21/02/2021 - 20:07

      Most of those 'plenty of places' had trees - before they were knocked down to be sold off as cleared blocks.
      Why is ok to clear other blocks, but not this one?

      • fantombloo on 21/02/2021 - 20:18
        +6

        Because other people's mistakes, or your own in the past, don't automatically justify your own going forward.

        Changes in community laws reflect changing community standards. They're not always right, or adequate, but if you want to be part of the community they should be challenged, not ignored.

        • Almost Banned on 21/02/2021 - 21:23

          So, are you against clearing for other blocks too?

          • fantombloo on 21/02/2021 - 22:32
            +5

            @Almost Banned: I don't know what you're getting at.

            I am against tree clearing generally, unless there is clearly more utility in it coming down than staying up, across the board for all the individuals who directly benefit from it, human and nonhuman. Sometimes the metrics are difficult. Other times not.

            If an extant tree is causing real damage or is a real threat to safety then sure, cut it down. If it's about fiddling with property values or because someone doesn't like their driveway getting dirty then not so much.

  • MS Paint on 21/02/2021 - 15:35
    +2

    That's some big ass trees very close to a house. Those gums can drop limbs at any time in the summer if under stress. Personally I wouldn't touch this house if the trees need to remain.

    • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 16:00

      thanks..it is very big for sure! I'm thinking the current owner must have asked the council if they could remove it but were denied. This is more of a hazard as you suggested.

  • havebeerbelywillsumo on 21/02/2021 - 16:12
    +1

    My first (possibly naive and uninformed) thought was- are you allowed to trim the trees?

    • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 17:36

      that could be an option! thanks

  • Ocker on 21/02/2021 - 16:16

    A quick phone call to the Whitehorse City Council on Monday morning will give you the answer, which I am tipping is that the trees must remain. If you argue the trees pose a safety hazard then they will require an arborist to inspect and offer his opinion.
    Given the trees are at the very front of the property is it not possible to build behind them?

    • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 17:37

      I agree. Build it as far behind as possible. Thank you

  • bobbified on 21/02/2021 - 16:20

    They might scream if you try to cut them down! 🤣

    • fantombloo on 21/02/2021 - 16:26
      +7

      No. But it may displace and otherwise unsettle beings that can scream.

      Tree protection is not for the sake of the trees.

      • bobbified on 21/02/2021 - 17:06
        -3

        I take it you've never heard a tree scream before? 😱😱

  • Seraphin7 on 21/02/2021 - 16:35
    +1

    As a general principle, councils won't allow you to remove trees such as this in the absence of a specific hazard (e.g the tree is sick/dying/dead or is causing damage to property). You likely won't get approval on the basis of what might happen, such as your lightning strike scenario.

    • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 17:38

      good point. thanks

  • northern nsw on 21/02/2021 - 16:57
    +4

    I'm not a builder or developer, if you want to live somewhere without these types of trees move to the ghettos on the Gold Coast where you can walk between house roofs in new developments, no room for trees (or light or air for that matter).

  • whooah1979 on 21/02/2021 - 17:42
    -4

    "Do first, ask forgiveness later"

    The best time to get the job done is on long weekends.

  • endotherm on 21/02/2021 - 17:48
    +3

    Property next door to mine had a massive tree at the front. They wanted to build units and had plans drawn up,with the front wall within centimeters of the trunk. Seemed weird. There was a prohibition on removing the tree. One day while clearing the lot the tree disappeared within half an hour, before neighbours knew about it or could complain. Council issued a $2000 fine. That was the only disincentive. I'm sure the lot was worth $100,000 more without the tree. Pay the fine, $98,000 profit. Win.

    • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 22:20

      Interesting. In that case, I wouldn't be surprised if a developer bids on this property as it has a wide frontage for building 2 units side by side. In our case, we just want to know what's possible without doing something dodgy like the developer you mentioned above.

      • foolsgold on 23/02/2021 - 12:52

        Just a FYI, if there tree is existing, when you are preparing plans you will be asked to make provisions for protecting it's roots, setting it back. Once this has been designed into it, if you were to remove the tree once you have been granted a permit, there would be little no benefit to the development. You will likely be denied an amendment to build where the tree once stood.

        For a side by side development it is your third tree that is the issue for getting a second cross over in there. It appears to be 'less significant'. Arguments with regards to removing a tree like this can be made with the assistance of
        - Good proposed design
        - Good arborist report
        - Good landscape design

        There's an argument to be had that the newer design will provide better landscape solution than the existing. This of course needs to be done sensitively. Happy to chat more send me a PM, I am an architect working in that area.

    • bargain huntress on 22/02/2021 - 15:22
      +1

      there's no point having such out of proportion fines

      maybe it's by design so they can pretend to protect trees while getting their hands on all those development fees and kick backs

      • endotherm on 22/02/2021 - 15:36
        +1

        That's kind of the point I was making. They have to be seen to be doing the right thing and protect their ass by issuing a prohibition order and Arborist report, while at the same time the planning department authorizes ridiculous plans to build right up to the tree trunk. It's almost they expected it to happen. Never mind, the Council Rates that come in will be more lucrative than what the tree can pay.

        • bargain huntress on 22/02/2021 - 15:50

          what can we do about corruption like that?

  • wizzy on 21/02/2021 - 17:53
    +1

    The following website outlines exactly what can and can't be done with trees in an SL09 overlay area in Whitehorse council. It is pretty clear:

    https://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/planning-building/do-i-nee…

    • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 22:20

      perfect. thank you

  • Quantumcat on 21/02/2021 - 17:54
    +3

    Do you have kids or planning to have them? Those trees would be awesome to climb, the one on the right especially as the branches are lower to the ground, the one on the left would just need some hand holds nailed on. The one on the left would also be a great tree to hang a swing from as the branches stick out at right angles and are very thick. If any of the branches that would be overhanging the house start to look a bit old and sick you can just trim them so they aren't a danger. It is a real shame to kill an old tree that's otherwise healthy.

    • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 22:23
      +1

      that's a very creative idea especially the swing idea! Kids would love that.

      • whooah1979 on 21/02/2021 - 22:43

        People would feel differently if they were aware of why they're called widowmakers.

        • nayanmodi on 21/02/2021 - 22:50
          -1

          You're right. I just read up on why these trees are called widowmakers. I didn't realise how dangerous these trees are!. "In Australia, one of the most notorious widowmaker trees is the Eucalyptus or Gum tree."

          • whooah1979 on 21/02/2021 - 23:08
            +1

            @nayanmodi: One of our neighbours thought nothing of it when they first moved in many years ago. That changed when Sydney had one of the wild night storms. They found a ~5 m branch had broken off during the night about 1m from the house.

            The insurer said that they wouldn't have covered the damage if it had hit the house or other properties.

            • kiitos on 22/02/2021 - 08:13
              +2

              @whooah1979: Why wouldn't it have been covered by insurance?

          • terrys on 22/02/2021 - 09:09
            +1

            @nayanmodi: "widowmaker trees is the Eucalyptus or Gum tree.""

            Not all 900 species mate.

        • Quantumcat on 22/02/2021 - 09:00
          +3

          A tree is not a widowmaker, individual branches are called widowmakers when they get old and look sick and weak. They can be trimmed.

  • Ocker on 21/02/2021 - 18:12
    +2

    Developers in Boroondara (where I Iive) have a way around any protection of trees - they simply chop down the tree in the wee hours of the morning before council opens to field neighbours complaints. They simply claim ignorance, wear a fine of a few thousand dollars and go on their merry way. Such developers suck and only care about the bucks.

  • Euphemistic on 22/02/2021 - 05:57
    +1

    Rule number one: the agent will tell you anything to make the sale.

    Talk to the local council BEFORE you make an offer.

  • delben on 22/02/2021 - 08:33

    Another thing to consider is whether the tree roots have caused damage to stormwater and/or sewer lines.
    You could have a plumber do a CCTV inspection of the pipes before you purchase. If the pipes have been compromised then you could use this to negotiate a further discount on the sale price of the property. Purchase the property. Then have the plumber issue you with a letter confirming the damage caused by the tree roots and submit this to council as a reason as to why the trees need to be removed. Remove the trees and then build your new house.I would confirm with Council first if this is a good enough reason for them to allow you to remove the trees.

  • Traveller107 on 22/02/2021 - 11:13
    +1

    Bought a house with gums bigger than those similarly located. Never had a problem. When we eventually sold the house not one buyer seemed to have a problem with it and they stand tall and proud there even now like they did decades ago. These are glorious trees and look healthy so there is nothing to worry about. Sadly you just seem like one of those people who want to move to a lush green beautiful suburb and then cut the trees and concrete and pave everything. Sad.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/02/2021 - 11:33
    +1

    I see them as a huge bonus. I wish my house had them and I got to save $100K off the asking price as well.

  • donkcat on 22/02/2021 - 13:58
    +1

    If the trees are a concern to you then I'd move on from this property. Talk to the council but I'm guessing these tree's will have several triggers with that overlay that will probably require you to hire private consultants where the environmental significance will need to be calculated, where in the event you succeeded in an application to remove the trees you would be required to pay for a biodiversity offset (this can get very expensive very quickly with large trees.

    I also wouldn't want to remove those tree's if the house was staying as it will disrupt the soil conditions (increased moisture without the roots) that may lead to house movement (aka cracking).

  • bargain huntress on 22/02/2021 - 15:12
    +1

    but there's already a house there?

  • bargain huntress on 22/02/2021 - 15:20
    +1

    an option people dont think of is moving trees

    it's not the cheapest option mind you, but a large old tree can be a real asset to a property depending on it's location

    you would need to speak to an arborist who has experience moving trees
    they can also tell you other important things like the tree's health, any safety concerns, possibilities to address the concerns like trimming and treatments, and costs.
    if they are local they would probably know the council rules too.

    and not a bad idea to get a second opinion from a second arborist if you're serious. they're as fallible and corruptable as everyone else.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join