I can remember the first time ever turning into Forestdale drive and seeing all the properties having large tree forming a canopy arch, what I had only ever see on country roads. I had never seen a suburban neighbourhood that look like that.
That is what immediately appealed to me. Even before I eventually found out how friendly most of the people in Forestdale are. I truely love this Suburb.
However things have slowly changed.
Have you noticed that there are a lot of properties that have all the large trees removed
Do you want to live in a future Forestdale that have very few large trees, such that, eventually it will look just like any other suburb?
I don't.
I was under the impression that ther were tree preservation laws that stop the removal of trees, unless it was necessary for safety or some other logical reason.
These do exist. Well sort of.
Like most laws ther are exceptions. Like for safety. In Forestdale you can remove a tree if it is within 10 meters of some construction.
Before I go on, this is only my interpretation of what I've read. As the legal people say, make your own enquiries.
Depending on the type of vegetation, outside of the 10 Meters, some trees can also be removed.
But ther are some that can not be removed, native trees and native habitat trees
Ther is this offset part of the laws that basically say that if you get an Arborist to define the trees that cannot be removed, you can still have them removed provided you pay an offset fee. The idea of an offset fee is that money is used to create or preserve some other area within Logan.
From the way I see this, based on the number of blocks that have been cleared, provided you pay the fee you can remove ALL vegetation from a property. You have to pay an offset fee to do so and get a Arborist report, but it would appear that it is unlikely applications are rejected.
Yet a clause in the Logan council FORM: Operational Works Application Vegetation Management Checksheet, states:
“Environmental offsets The Logan Planning Scheme, in Planning scheme policy 3 Environmental Management, outlines the requirements for environmental offsets to compensate for the environmental impact of vegetation clearing, either on the same site (restoration offset) or external to the proposed development site. Environmental impact is first to be avoided, then minimised where possible, with offsets being used to compensate for any remaining impact and achieve an equivalent (no net loss) or better (net gain) environmental outcome. Clearing in areas of higher ecological value/significance will attract a higher and/or more significant offset”
I have not been able to find The Logan Planning Scheme, in Planning scheme policy 3 Environmental Management, on the Logan council web site.
Yes you can. BUT it may have no legal stading
From: Logan Development Enquiry Tool Help
“Some development applications will be open for a period of public review and comment before a decision is made. Public notification applies to applications which are impact assessable. These applications are generally larger, more complex, or don’t meet some of the rules in the Logan Planning Scheme. During the period of public notification, any member of the public can make a submission objecting to or supporting part or all of the proposed development.
Other types of applications, and development applications which are not impact assessable, are not made available for public comment. If you do have a concern about a proposal or approval, you may still contact Council, however there may be no legal grounds for a formal objection.”
As I understand it vegetation removal on blocks of land in Forestdale are not impact accessible, therefore there will be no legal grounds for a formal objection.
Regardless of what laws exist, many people believe that their home is their own private domain. They should have the right to do with it what ever they want. Which up to a certain point is a reasonable belief. But where is that point. Its individually verses society.
On reading about environmental laws I see that ther aim was in finding a balance between development and the environment.
This all becomes a political discussion that tends to be left to politicians with very little reference to individuals. Paid Professional influences have more access to politicians than the general public.
Part of the cost of being able to do what ever you want with your own property is paying a offset fee.
The bottom line is money. Or those with more money can pay to do what they want, compared with those with less money.
Microeconomic theory has a term, economic value added. All other things being equal, the more value you add to something the more chance you have of selling it for a higher price.
Paying an offset fee for vegetation removal adds value to a property, possibly more so, than the aesthetics of retaining vegetation.
From the tradional macroeconomics point of view, the environment is seen as an externality. External to the theory. But the concept of offsets adds to total economic activity, therefore is good for the economy.
If the precedent that has been set of allowing the payment of an offset for removal of vegetation continues in Forestdale, logically, eventually there will be little or no vegetation worth preserving.
Even excluding offsets, the allowing of removal of vegitation 10 meters from built construction has the potential to eliminate large areas of vegetation because new construction can always be added, if allowed, such that vegitation around that new construction can be removed. Put a small shed in the middle of your backyard, for which you don't need to get council approval, then you can remove vegetation from 10 meters around it.
The concept of balancing development with the environment is also logically, in the long-term, flawed. Even if legislation states that half of vegetation has to be maintained, at a future time, that half can be halved. Then the remaining half harved. And so on. To the extend that ther is next to no vegetation left.
If you want to be able to clear all the vegetation from your property, do nothing, other than having to have the money to do it, the system is ticking a long quite nicely for you.
If, like me, you don't want Forestdale to become a non Forestdale, then make that quite clear to your local political representatives. Don't accept the spin they give you, that they are doing what you want. Refer them to this web page, to prove that it is not happening
Then talk to 2 other people about this, and ask both of them to talk to 2 people about it. If that were to happen 23 times everybody in Forestdale would no about it. 26 times everybody in Australia and 34 times everybody in the world.
Thats exponential.
Not everyone is going to do what you ask, but you can increase the chances of more people noing about it by asking more than 2 people to talk about it to 2 people.
These links show that the present system is not working. It is not doing what was intended, and very little is being done to fix the problem:
As a consequence of all the above I put a post about it on the local Forestdale Facebook page, part of which I said I would write to our local councillor asking him to put on motion to the next council meeting to eliminate Offsets in Forestdale. But I asked if anyone was against the idea. As no-one was against it I wrote the below:
From: Geoff Greig geoffreykgreig@gmail.com Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 4:25:58 PM To: Frazer, Tim TimFrazer@logan.qld.gov.au Subject:
Tim.
I request that you put forwarded a motion at the next council meeting that all offsets for vegitation removal are not to be allowed in Forestdale.
Please let me no when the next council meeting will be and after the meeting, what the result of the motion is.
Thanks Geoff Greig Forestdale
On Sat, 13 July 2024, 6:31 am Frazer, Tim, TimFrazer@logan.qld.gov.au wrote:
Hi Geoff
I am unable to do as you requested as Council does not have the head of power to force residents to do what you are asking.
Also the DA Manager is willing to get someone to chat with you about this matter if you like.
Please send me your phone number if you would like to have someone call you.
I hope you have a nice weekend.
Kind regards
Tim Frazer
Councillor for Division 7, Logan City Council
From: Geoff Greig geoffreykgreig@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2024 09:37 To: Frazer, Tim TimFrazer@logan.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: Council motions
Tim,
Thank for for your reply, your explanation and suggestion.
However I do not wish to have a verbal conversation with a council employee, as they are not the person that represents me.
I do not understand the term “head of power” can you please explain it to me?
I asked you to put forwarded a motion at the next council meeting. Regardless of what a motion may be, can also explain what makes you “unable” to put it?
I wish to read your answers to my questions, not someone elses.
Thanks Geoff Greig
The contents of this email message and any attachments are NOT intended only for the addressee and may NOT be confidential, private or the subject of copyright.
Hi Geoff
All good about not wanting to chat with anyone else.
A head of power is a term used to describe what a particular level of government is permitted to have legal control over/jurisdiction over.
There is no way that a State or Federal government would permit Local government to legally exclude all residents of a suburb from clearing their properties entirely. This would make land worthless if trees cannot be cleared to permit the construction of houses, sheds or other structures. Offsets can be required for circumstances where trees have to be cleared for an assortment of reasons.
To answer your question, Council cannot do what you are asking ( we do not have the powers that allow us to do so ), therefore that is why I said I cannot put forward any motions as you requested, that would be a waste of time and resources.
Have a nice weekend.
Kind regards
Tim Frazer
Councillor for Division 7, Logan City Council.
Tim,
Thanks for the clarification.
The motion I proposed would not stop residents from clearing ther properties completely. Ther are already regulations that allow residents to remove vegitation for a variety of reasons. They would still exist.
I'm only asking that the offset be abolished in one suburb, Forestdale. As I understand it and please correct me if you think I'm wrong, offsets are used if the vegitation removal WOULD be detrimental to the environment.
Therefore offsets elimination in Forestdale would have not make our land worthless. Quite the opposite. It is more likely to increase ther values. Many people want to live in a suburb where there environment is being protected. I was under the impression that ours was being protected, until I found out about these Offsets.
If you read the latest literature on offsets you'll see that basically it has been a big failure. It is being used to eliminate vegetation, the exact opposite of its intention.
Considering all the above, can I ask you to please tell me which piece of state or federal government legislation would not allow the motion that I proposed to be enacted?
As far as being a waste of time and effort of putting forward such a motion, I respectfully disagree.
Ther have been many cases where legislation has been tried all the way up into the high court, and found to be justified. You don't know unless you try it.
I'm not aware of any legislation at all for legislation contravening other legislation.
Geoff Greig Forestdale
Tim,
You have not answered my question in my last email.
Can you please do so?
Also as I did not specifically ask, can you also tell me what legislation exists that does not allow opposite legislation to exist in another jurisdiction?
Thanks
Geoff Greig
Good afternoon Geoff
Just to be clear, this is not my field of expertise, you would be best talking to someone from DA. I can however say that the State Planning Act requires us to provide offset plantings which is a State issue and not a Council issue, we just do what we are told to do by the State. I hope this makes sense.
Kind regards
Tim Frazer
Councillor for Division 7, Logan City Council
Tim,
Sorry but it does not make sense.
As I said before, you are my elected representative, so I wish to correspond with you.
As it is not your area of expertise, and it is a very important issue to many that live in Forestdale, please seek advise from whoever so that you can answer my questions.
Here are a few other questions
If it is a state issue then why is it administered by council?
I see the council sets the offset fee.
Why it it so low?
Can the council increase it substantially?
Thanks
Geoff Greig
Hi Geoff
All good. Just be mindful that responses from others can take a few weeks. Your questions require others to give responses.
Have a nice afternoon.
Kind regards
Tim Frazer
Tim,
A few weeks is ok.
However be mindful that I wish the response to come from you. Not from from someone elses saying they are writing in response to the questions I asked.
I need to no that you, as my elected representative are also informed.
Thanks Geoff Greig
Hi Geoff
I am always copied in to any responses sent by the Council staff, if you want me to send the response, there may be up to an additional 3 business day delay. Are you fine with having even more delays?
Kind regards
Tim Frazer
Councillor for Division 7, Logan City Council
Tim,
I dont understand why you being copied in on responses sent by the Council staff, means ther will be an additional 3 business days delay in you emailing me?
Unless you mean you want 3 days to analyse what you get?
If so thats ok.
Geoff Greig
Hi Geoff
My email turn around is approximately 3 business days, that is all. If I am earlier at times, that is a good thing.
Kind regards
Tim Frazer
Councillor for Division 7, Logan City Council
Good afternoon Geoff,
Below is the answer to your enquiry. If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact my office again.
Thank you for your email query regarding Council’s Council’s environmental offsets policies and costs.
The Logan Planning Scheme 2015, provides the framework for land use and development and aims to protect and enhance environmental values, including wildlife habitat and movement, biodiversity corridors and native vegetation restrict vegetation clearing in protected areas while providing for sustainable development. The parts of the planning scheme that control vegetation clearing are listed here. You can read these to see the rules that apply.
· Biodiversity Areas Overlay Code
· Waterway corridors and wetlands overlay code
· Logan Planning Scheme 2015 (Policy 3 – Environmental management).
The planning scheme provides options for any unavoidable clearing as a result of assessable development to be offset – this includes options for providing a financial settlement and/or a proponent driven offset. Where a financial settlement offset is provided to Council, these funds are utilised for rehabilitation and land costs to ensure a conservation outcomes is achieved that results in a net gain of ecological values over the long term. This includes the acquisition of land for environmental offset purposes which is governed by Council’s Land Acquisition Policy adopted in 2017. More information can be found at Strategic land acquisition policy (logan.qld.gov.au)
To guide Council’s acquisition of land for environmental offset purposes, Council adopted a set of ‘Land Acquisition for Environmental Offsets Prioritisation Principles” that is used to assess the suitability of available land for environmental offset purposes. The adopted principles are:
Land for environmental offsets is to be located within or adjacent to a mapped wildlife/biodiversity corridor (as per the Biodiversity Corridor mapping in the Logan Planning Scheme 2015). Priority is given to land that is connected to the City of Logan’s natural area network – properties that adjoin or in close proximity to existing environmental parks/reserves and/or environmentally zoned land Priority is given to land that is in closer proximity to development areas – offsets should be delivered in proximity to the impacted site Land needs to be predominately cleared – to ensure revegetation of the land will result in a significant increase in the ecological values of the land Value for Money – consideration is given to achieving the best value for money which relates to the cost per hectare of the land being acquired
We use offset funds exclusively to purchase and rehabilitate degraded land to:
replace environmental values lost during development increase and improve koala and other significant species habitat improve connectivity between broken and isolated areas of vegetation support environmental initiatives aligned to our River Recovery Program increase our green space and provide opportunities for eco-friendly recreational activities. To find out more, see our list of environmental offset sites in Logan.
Environmental offset polices exist at all levels of government. The Australian Government may require an offset under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. Queensland Government has a Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy. The Queensland Environmental Offsets policy and associated legislation outlines how much offsets can be charged and the amount of offset required which is generally calculated by the size, in square metres, of protected native vegetation cleared and/or the number of protected native trees and native habitat trees cleared (to which the relevant offset policy applies).
We appreciate your interest in supporting Council to ensure sufficient funds are secured to acquire suitable land that can be used for environmental offset purposes. Therefore, in summary:
Depending on the environmental impact and the level of protection, Council, State or Federal Government may collect an offset for unavoidable environmental impacts Council administers our offset program which for unavoidable clearing of protected vegetation under the Logan Planning Scheme 2015 The offset fee is based on the cost to deliver the conservation outcome and is calculated to ensure there is a net gain of ecological values over the long term. All offsets must be managed in accordance with the Queensland Government’s Environmental Offsets legislation and policy
I hope this helps clarify Council’s role in delivering environmental offsets, and feel free to get back in touch with any questions or queries.
Kind regards
Tim Frazer
Councillor for Division 7, Logan City Council
Division 7 includes the suburbs of Boronia Heights, Browns Plains, Forestdale, Hillcrest, Park Ridge (part of), Regents Park (part of)
Mobile: 0480 199 901 | Email: timfrazer@logan.qld.gov.au
Tim,
Thanks for your, quicker than I expected, reply.
However it appears to be written by someone other than yourself as it offen uses the word “we” and it appears be text that was used for some other reason. Like it says “We appreciate your interest in supporting Council to ensure sufficient funds are secured to acquire suitable land that can be used for environmental offset purposes”, when I have never expressed any support for council in any such thing.
Regardless of that, your reply does not answer my questions.
I no or can find out how the offset system is supposed to work. My initial request to you was to put a motion at the next council meeting, to change the offset laws, specifically for Forestdale.
The information you sent me does not say that such a motion can not be put. My reading, between the lines, is that council has the ability to change the laws via changing its planning scheme. If my motion was successful then the council staff can do what is required to make it happen. Even if such a change does not have the “head of power” to do so. You have not indicated to me any laws that say that a law can not conflict with another law in a different jurisdiction, Council, state, Federal
Re my question about why the offset fees are so low.
Because what you sent me has a link to the · Logan Planning Scheme 2015 (Policy 3 – Environmental management, I was able to find the multiple convoluted formulas for calculating the offset fee. The person that wrote those formulas should get a prize for the best way to confuse a reader.
If, as the stated purpose of offsets is to ensure a conservation outcomes is achieved that results in a net gain of ecological values over the long term, and the offset per tree is as little as $128, then, either whoever used the formulas has made a mistake, or the formulas are wrong.
To find out which, please have a council employee, or anyone, show each formula using current figures.
Thanks Geoff Greig
The contents of this email message and any attachments are not intended only for the addressee and may not be confidential, private or the subject of copyright
Good morning Geoff
On 13/7 my reply was stated there. However to explain it further, the State Government has adopted the State Planning Act and this allows for offset plantings/fees for all areas that cannot exclude specific suburbs. At Council, we must comply with State Legislation and cannot over ride anything contained with in any of their Legislation therefore I will not be putting up your requested GB motion. The State needs to change their Legislation if you want to see any change as you keep referring to.
Kind regards
Tim Frazer
Councillor for Division 7, Logan City Council
Tim,
We are now going around in circles.
I gave reasons why you could put forwarded the motion and why it would not be a waste of time, in my reply to your email of 13/07/2024.
I also have asked you multiple times why legislation in one jurisdiction can not contradict legislation and another. You have not ever answered that question.
If such a motion has the issues that you described, that does NOT stop it from being put.
If you don't want to do what your constituents request, then please specifically say so.
Ther is more than one way to solve a problem.
As I described previously the multiple convoluted formulas for calculating offsets, do not achieve the desired aim of having offsets.
I therefore request that you put forwarded a motion at the next council meeting. That being, how the calculation of the amount payed for offset per tree, be explained, in simple terms.
Again I do not want to talk to or correspond with anyone other than my elected representative, as that is what representative politics is about.
Thanks Geoff Greig