by Cam Lucadou-Wells
Greater Dandenong Council will resume negotiations to try to save a River Red Gum in central Noble Park after a councillor vote on Monday 27 May.
With applause from a packed public gallery, councillors voted down an officer’s recommendation to consent to removing the 20-metre tall tree at the edge of an “affordable housing” development site at 51A Douglas Street.
The tree is touted to be among the last remnant River Red Gums standing in the business district.
The council will instead continue to press the developer and the Level Crossing Removal Authority for a re-design of the proposed six-storey 97-unit apartment block.
However, if the negotiations fail, the council will consent in exchange for a potential $155,000 developer offset.
The offset was expected to fund about 15 replacement trees of 2.5 metres height in Noble Park.
Greater Dandenong city futures executive director Sanjay Manivasagasivam conceded that the developer had not yet agreed to the $155,000 offset.
The mooted offset was calculated using a City of Melbourne formula, though Cr Tim Dark noted that under Greater Dandenong’s rules, the offset may be just $5000 or $10,000.
The council was caught in a “unique and disappointing situation”, according to an officer’s report.
Having opposed the proposed loss of the River Red Gums on the site, the council was directed by Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny to issue a permit for the apartments and trees’ removal.
Mr Manivasagasivam told the meeting that the council would have been unlikely to have granted a permit – had it not been for Ms Kilkenny’s edict.
The council is part-owner of the River Red Gum straddling the site and adjoining footpath.
Which means that despite the permit, the developer still needs the council’s consent to remove the tree.
Cr Sophie Tan, who led the motion to preserve the tree, said “there’s no cost can replace this tree”.
Chopping down the tree was against the grain of the council’s Urban Forest Strategy and Greening Our Neighbourhoods policy, she argued.
“We’re here to save the history of Noble Park.”
Cr Rhonda Garad said the 15 smaller replacement trees would not compensate for the loss of biodiversity or the loss of carbon sequestration from felling the River Red Gum.
It would take 20 years before the new trees would begin to sequester carbon. Over their first decade, they would be net carbon emitters, she argued.
In opposition, Cr Bob Milkovich said the motion put the council in “direct contravention” with a planning permit that it had itself issued.
Greater Dandenong would be exposed to being sued – and without any funds allocated for the potential lawsuit in 2023-’24 and 2024-’25.
During the passionate debate, Cr Dark unsuccessfully moved a dissent motion against mayor Lana Formoso over a point of order. Deputy mayor Richard Lim chaired the extraordinary vote.
Placard-waving residents probed the council during a public question time before the vote.
Among them was Greater Dandenong Environment Group president Isabelle Nash, dressed as the Dr Suess character The Lorax.
The council was asked about the “alarming” lack of notice given to residents, the area’s sparse canopy coverage, the “pitiful” $155,000 compensation as well as the precedent set for future developments.
They were backed by an online petition that has swelled to 1800 signatories.
Several residents and councillors asserted that the River Red Gum could be 200 or 300 years old – contradicting a tree consultant’s report that dated the tree as 80 years due to its lack of nesting hollows.
The consultant rated it as a “high worth tree for retention” – likely a self-sown native with another 100-plus years of life.
Nearby, a 23-metre tall River Red Gum – less than 80 years old – stands several metres within the site’s perimeter. It does not require council consent for removal.
Greater Dandenong has already given consent to the removal of a seven-metre WA flowering gum on a pavement outside the site.
It was assessed to be in poor health, most likely due to root damage during recent road and footpath works.
Cr Sean O’Reilly, inspired by the Lorax’s presence, recited a Dr Seuss-style ode to sum up the “tough spot”.
“Every point raised in public question time was sound / Councillors shared a frustration all around.
“We feel a hopelessness that the protestors call / But we must make a choice that benefits all.”
The council officer’s report argued there was a “high risk” that the developer could sue the council for the significant time and money invested into the project.
“This is a unique and disappointing situation where Council has been placed in a position of having to issue a planning permit for tree removal (that it strongly objected to) by the Minister for Planning, making Council responsible for the permit, and the ability for it to be acted upon.”
The project creates 97 “affordable housing” apartments amid a housing crisis, the council report stated.
The site would include 49 car parking spaces – a shortfall of 76 car spaces – as well as 98 bicycle parking spaces near to the Djerring Trail.
