Hornsby tree rules: New laws planned to prevent tree loss
The council is proposing new laws, which would make it more difficult for property owners to remove trees in the Hornsby Shire. Here’s everything you need to know.
Hornsby
Don't miss out on the headlines from Hornsby. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Confirmed COVID-19 cases across Hornsby and the Hills.
- Owner in tears following Thornleigh convenience store robbery.
Hornsby rate payers will be required to go through the development application process if they want to chop down trees found on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map, under proposed laws by the council.
At the August meeting heated debate erupted between Hornsby councillors over a decision about vegetation mapping, which allows the council to keep track of existing tree canopy on properties.
Three options were put to councillors. Cr Emma Heyde urged councillors to support option two, which would “expand” vegetation mapping so that it would cover 12,150 properties, where as, option one would cover 4,100 properties.
The current vegetation mapping includes 1,750 properties.
While councillors were divided on the matter, Cr Heyde’s recommendation was adopted.
Mayor Philip Ruddock, Cr Joseph Nicita, Cr Mick Marr, Cr Janelle McIntosh and Cr Vince Del Gallego voted in favour of Cr Heyde’s proposal.
Meanwhile, Cr Warren Waddell, Cr Nathan Tilbury, Cr Robert Brown and Cr Michael Hutchence voted against it.
“Accurate mapping is pretty essential so that the council is open and transparent about where the vegetation is, and how it might be impacted by development,” Cr Heyde said.
“We have the most canopy cover of any council area in Sydney, but we are the third worst council area for tree loss.
“Residents are always asking me to do more to protect it, so I think the council has done the right thing to accurately reflect where trees are growing.”
She explained what the next steps were.
“The council will now make sure that residents in the newly mapped areas can undertake tree work like being able to prune trees and remove dead ones,” she said.
“After that, the recommendation is presented to the Department of Planning for their consideration. Once the council knows that it has approval for the concept, the new mapping proposal will be put out for comment so everyone can have a say.”
During the council meeting Cr Ruddock stated option one and option three left council in a “vulnerable” position.
“A significant portion of our tree canopy would not be covered in [in option one]. Option two would involve all tree vegetation in all our communities.
“Vegetation mapping ought to respond to our tree reservation matters. The idea that trees are not mapped leaves us vulnerable, those are matters of concern to me.”
Cr Tilbury disagreed, stating the council risked getting residents “off side” by adopting option two.
“Other threes are protected, we have something called a TPO (a tree preservation order). We don’t need another law in place to impact residents,” Cr Tilbury said at the council meeting.
“Option two will not protect trees, it will cost more money because a significant amount of resources will be needed. There will be a significant number of DA’s that would come to the council. There will need to be a lot more fauna assessments.
“It will not stop road developers or private certifier’s, they will find away around it. It will impact mums and dads wanting to do minor works and we’ll lose trees to illegal poisoning or removal. Option one is the only way to go, consultation has been touched a number of times.”
Cr Tilbury told the Advocate, there needed to be further community consultation.
“I will make sure every single affected resident is consulted. From the feedback I’m getting, I believe we would get between 70 and 80 per cent of residents objecting to this proposal, which would affect stand alone dwellings.”
The council will write to the Department of Planning seeking approval to expand the vegetation maps.