- Published on
By Catherine Watson
24 Hastings Street certainly stands out from its Ventnor neighbours. In a heavily wooded residential area, with a Vegetation Protection Overlay, most of this block is bare grass.
Fifteen trees have been removed from the site and at Wednesday’s council meeting the last two trees on the block – a southern blue gum and a Syndey blue gum – were reluctantly authorised for removal.
Council officers recommended a permit be granted on the basis of the declining health of the trees and the risk of failure, according to an arborist’s report.
24 Hastings Street certainly stands out from its Ventnor neighbours. In a heavily wooded residential area, with a Vegetation Protection Overlay, most of this block is bare grass.
Fifteen trees have been removed from the site and at Wednesday’s council meeting the last two trees on the block – a southern blue gum and a Syndey blue gum – were reluctantly authorised for removal.
Council officers recommended a permit be granted on the basis of the declining health of the trees and the risk of failure, according to an arborist’s report.
The application attracted 22 objections, many from other Ventnor residents disturbed by the loss of vegetation and habitat. Some were dubious about the alleged ill health of the trees.
The motion to issue a permit for removal failed at last month’s council meeting but since an alternative motion had not been put up it had to be revisited. It left councillors in a quandary. The owner had failed to follow an approved revegetation plan following the earlier removal of trees.
The motion to issue a permit for removal failed at last month’s council meeting but since an alternative motion had not been put up it had to be revisited. It left councillors in a quandary. The owner had failed to follow an approved revegetation plan following the earlier removal of trees.
“Those trees have stood the test of time. I don't see any reason why they should come down before there's a replacement canopy.”
Cr Tim O'Brien
“The proponents bought into an area with an evident tree canopy,” Cr Tim O’Brien said. “His neighbours quite rightly expect their neighbourhood character to be preserved.
“Those trees have stood the test of time. I don't see any reason why they should come down before there's a replacement canopy.”
Cr Jan Thompson pointed out that the owner had reported a large branch from one of the trees had fallen in this week’s high winds.
The motion to approve the removal eventually passed by five votes to three, with Crs O’Brien, Mat Morgan and Ron Bauer voting against it.
As a condition of the permit, the owner will have to plant eight canopy trees and 52 indigenous species of shrubs, ground cover and grasses. A planting plan will have to be submitted and endorsed before the two trees are removed.
And the permit comes with a warning: this time around the replanting will be closely monitored by council officers. If the required trees and shrubs are not replanted within three months of the tree felling, the council will take civil action against the owner.
No doubt Ventnor residents will be watching closely too.
“Those trees have stood the test of time. I don't see any reason why they should come down before there's a replacement canopy.”
Cr Jan Thompson pointed out that the owner had reported a large branch from one of the trees had fallen in this week’s high winds.
The motion to approve the removal eventually passed by five votes to three, with Crs O’Brien, Mat Morgan and Ron Bauer voting against it.
As a condition of the permit, the owner will have to plant eight canopy trees and 52 indigenous species of shrubs, ground cover and grasses. A planting plan will have to be submitted and endorsed before the two trees are removed.
And the permit comes with a warning: this time around the replanting will be closely monitored by council officers. If the required trees and shrubs are not replanted within three months of the tree felling, the council will take civil action against the owner.
No doubt Ventnor residents will be watching closely too.
Comments are closed.
In this case, two qualified arborists deemed the trees unsafe, and the property owner offered to replace them with more than fifty new trees. Yet, some councillors resisted their removal, even after a large branch reportedly came down in last week’s high winds.
Cr Tim O’Brien suggested that “those trees have stood the test of time” and should stay until a replacement canopy is established. With respect, this view ignores the most basic principle of public safety. Trees, like all living things, eventually reach the end of their safe life. When professionals condemn them, it is no longer about aesthetics – it is about risk.
The bigger question is about balance. What if, instead of two dangerous gums, the decision had been about housing for the homeless? (No house if two trees stand in the way). Would councillors again choose the trees over people?
We all value our green canopy, but protecting it should never come at the cost of injury or loss of life. Nor should it stand in the way of sensible community priorities like housing and safety.
Good governance requires balance – weighing the importance of vegetation against the equally important needs of people. On this occasion, Council’s eventual decision to allow removal, subject to a strict replanting plan, was the right one.
For the record, here are some facts:
Facts About Tree Hazards
Deaths and serious injuries from falling branches do occur in Australia.
In Victoria, there have been recent reports of both injuries and fatalities from falling limbs during storms. SafeWork SA has also issued alerts after people were killed or seriously injured by falling branches in public places.
Fatalities from accidental tree failures are rare, but real.
A study by Hartley & Chalk (“A Review of Deaths in Australia from Accidental Tree Failures”) identified 51 deaths over 12½ years. That’s an annual mortality rate of about 1 in 5 million. The probability is low — but not zero.
Liability exists when known risks are ignored.
In Timbs v Shoalhaven City Council (NSW), the Court of Appeal found the council negligent for failing to act on a tree known to be dangerous after years of complaints. The tree later fell and killed a man. This case is now a benchmark in council liability.
Local & Australian Examples
Bass Coast (Inverloch, 2024): A farmer was fined for removing 31 mature trees illegally. While not about hazardous trees, it shows how vegetation issues here quickly become legal and political.
Bass Coast (Street Trees, 2024): A local wrote to the Sentinel-Times warning about a lemon-scented gum dropping limbs. Council deemed it “healthy” despite risks, leaving residents frustrated.
Cowes Boat Ramp (2022): Council was criticised for removing mahoganies for a carpark upgrade, highlighting the constant tension between trees and development.
Yarra Valley Caravan Park (Victoria): A camper was killed by a falling branch; the park was prosecuted for failing to arrange proper arborist inspections.
These examples show that ignoring risk is never consequence-free. Even if Bass Coast Council has not yet been sued over a tree, the danger and liability are real.
What Happens to Wildlife?
It’s true that hollow-bearing trees provide critical habitat for birds, possums, and reptiles. When such trees are lost, those species may struggle. But new plantings, habitat boxes, and revegetation can help bridge the gap — provided it is done promptly and monitored properly. Pretending unsafe trees can simply stay indefinitely ignores both the risk to people and the need for structured replacement.
The Key Point
This is not about “trees versus people.” It is about balance. Protecting vegetation is important, but it should never come at the cost of human life or legal liability. Councillors have a duty of care to act when experts identify risk. Good governance means weighing environment, safety, and community needs together — not in isolation.
By all means, defend the value of habitat, but don’t resort to calling others “ignorant.” That, in itself, is a kind of ignorance.