Conservation SA leads Comparison of Australia’s Tree Laws, finds Adelaide’s are the worst

Adelaide is the leafy, shady green city, right? Maybe not, with a report saying we need a major rethink on our tree laws before it’s too late.

Trees should be protected for their canopy and height, not just their trunk, to help bring South Australia’s tree laws into line with other states, a study has shown.

It’s the first of eight actions outlined in the Comparison of Australia’s Tree Laws from the Conservation Council SA and partners Treenet, Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, National Trust SA, Nature Conservation Society SA and Trees For Life.

Others include removing exemptions in place such as allowing the removal of any tree within 10m of a dwelling or in-ground pool (except eucalyptus or willow myrtle).

“Exceptional” trees would also be identified for extra protection. Dead trees would be only removed where they do not provide habitat for native fauna.

Mitcham Council’s Young Australian of the Year, Tom Morrison, was lead author.

In every other state, aside from the ACT, local governments set their own rules, so Mr Morrison had to compare SA laws against 47 others. He said the results were “truly mind-blowing”.

Tom Morrison of Glenalta, who formed the Facebook group 20 Metre Trees, in Belair National Park. Picture: Dean Martin

“Metropolitan Adelaide has the worst tree protections in Australia,” he said.

“Our tree protections were fundamentally undermined by regulation exemptions introduced in 2011, which permitted the unnecessary removal of large trees based on their proximity to a dwelling.”

He found only three places interstate that used specific exemptions such as proximity to a building to enable homeowners to remove a protected tree without a permit.

The State Planning Commission’s most recent report card assessing progress against the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide found that metropolitan Adelaide was not on track to meet its tree canopy goals.

Conservation Council SA chief executive Craig Wilkins said Adelaide has been “lulled into a false sense of security about tree cover” because the parklands were so prominent, but Greater Adelaide actually has less public open space than other capital cities.

“The current wave of tree loss across Adelaide will only get worse unless our tree law protections start to match the status quo in other cities like Melbourne and Sydney,” he said. “In Adelaide our tree protection rules only start to kick in when a tree reaches a massive size. In every place across the country this report looked at, trees of a much smaller size are protected.”

Green Adelaide Landscape Board chairman Professor Chris Daniels said he hoped the “powerful and compelling document” would make SA “really determined to act to protect the city’s forest” and the biodiversity that makes our region special.

“Whilst we have some legislation to protect significant and regulated trees, its power is comparatively weak,” he said. “The report clearly identifies that we need more comprehensive legislation to protect our forest … The most powerful part of this review though, is that is doesn’t just highlight the problems; it provides a road map to solve the issues.”