samantha in the press - 10/50

Clearing rule widens
Leader Newspapers
by Kimberley Seedy
3 Jan 2012

samantha in the press - planning

Dunn deals with email
Yarra Ranges Weekly
29 Nov 2011

Debate over new tree-chopping rules
Leader Newspapers
by Kimberley Seedy
30 Nov 2011

samantha in the press – 10/30 rule

Yarra Ranges survivors warn tree clearing not the only way

Lilydale & Yarra Valley Leader

by Alex Munro

10 Aug 2010

in the press – bushfire royal commission, 10/30 rule

Dandenongs groups, council welcome proposed chopping of 10/30 laws

Free Press Leader

by Kimberley Seedy

4 Aug 2010

10/30 to 15/40

If you thought 10/30 was an ill informed decision, then what about 15/40 for our schools? I learnt just over a week ago that Selby Primary School was going to be affected by tree removal works along with 31 other schools (28 of them in the Yarra Ranges). There was no detail, no explanation other than a quote from the DEECD “While recognising the significance and value of the trees to the school landscape, their loss is significantly outweighed by the safety of students and staff”.

Once again we have a government who are making decisions to remove trees without any evidence that it will protect the safety of students and staff in the event of a bushfire.

To make matters worse the school put out a newsletter saying the Shire of Yarra Ranges were aware of the clearing at schools – the only reason the Shire knew of any tree removal at any school was due to an outpouring of concern from many of the schools affected.

Happier times at Selby Primary School. When I inspected a plan of the proposed removal of trees and vegetation at Selby Primary School I was very concerned. The plan did not delineate the boundary of the school and trees outside of the school boundary (not on school property) had been marked for removal. This is unacceptable, unlawful and leaves me with little confidence in the process used to assess vegetation at schools across the Yarra Ranges.

When I finally saw a plan of the proposed tree removals at Selby Primary I realised that 3 of the trees on the plan were Shire of Yarra Ranges trees, 30 metre plus stringybarks at that. As it turns out there are five schools where the boundary is unclear and there could be many mistakes made in identifying which trees are allowed to be removed.

Last week I wrote to the Minister for Education, Browyn Pike MP about my concerns and said “I look forward to a prompt response to the matters I have raised, particularly in relation to the flawed tree removal plan for Selby Primary School and look for urgent assurances that no tree off of school land will be removed as part of this exercise in futility.”


To date I have not received a direct response from the Minister or my local member and have no assurance that these trees won’t be removed, let alone provided with an explanation and evidence as to how this tree removal will protect the safety of students and staff.

One of the trees scheduled for removal at Selby Primary School. School Principals and school councils have had no ability to provide genuine input into this decision, which in reality they have had no control over as the decision was already made for them, as expressed in the circular to parents ‘School Bushfire Refuges’. In the case of Selby Primary School should the tree removal plan be followed this will see the illegal removal of non school trees and liability of this transferred to the school Principal and school council.

This isn’t good enough, it seems the government has carefully crafted the communication of its tree removal plans so parents have had little opportunity to respond before the start of the school holidays. Selby Primary School was inspected on the 4th August, some 6 weeks ago, allowing plenty of opportunity for consultation. I congratulate those school councils and principals who have stood up to the government on the 15/40 issue.

Fire science principles do not support tree removal as an appropriate mechanism to protect students and staff, nor communities for that matter from bushfire attack.

In many of the schools the trees proposed for removal are isolated, scattered trees with no understorey, usually paved underneath or bare dirt. Fire science says that these scattered trees are highly unlikely to contribute to any additional radiant heat or ember attack in the event of a bushfire. There is evidence to support that these trees may reduce wind speeds at a local level therefore reducing the severity of fire to surrounding buildings.

Further to this the CFA recommends that a protective shield of trees be planted around houses to slow the wind, cut down radiant heat and catch flying embers. These principles should also be applied to our schools.

Aside from closing schools on days of Total Fire Ban a genuine effort to reduce fire severity would be a continued effort to reduce fire fuel within school grounds. The CFA is also explicit in its definition of fire fuels: dead undergrowth, fallen branches, woodpiles, leaves in gutters, long dry grass, fallen leaves and twigs, anything smaller in diameter than your little finger is a fine fuel and it is these that must be removed to protect against bushfire attack.

The CFA’s publication ‘Living in the Bush: Bushfire Survival Plan Workbook’ clearly states “Trees are not the major threat. Many people think trees are the major threat during a bushfire. However, the fire front is carried by the undergrowth, such as shrubs and tall grasses rather than the trees. The main issue with trees is their bark. Loose flaky or ribbon bark can contribute to ember attack.”

Trees provide our children with shade in summer and a rich and valuable learning environment. Trees also contribute significantly to the local amenity and habitat of not only the school grounds, but the surrounding areas as well. I have further concerns that the proposed tree removal will lead to a false sense of security with the future potential for tragic outcomes.

Parents, students and staff not only deserve, but require an explanation and rationale for tree removal and the ability to input into decisions about their school. It is disrespectful to school communities, the principles of community consultation and open and transparent government to do anything less.

clearing concerns top the talk

The new vegetation controls were the talk of the town at this month's Kallista market (on Saturday). Many residents expressed their concern to me about the new '10/30 right' vegetation controls. Their greatest concern that the environment they value and love now has the potential be decimated under the new 10/30 rights.

The one size fits all is not a good approach to vegetation management. The Shire of Yarra Ranges has enjoyed strong vegetation controls with protections enshrined in the Planning and Environment Act. That is up until last week when the Brumby government decided to amend the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan which saw an end to our vegetation controls which the community has fought long and hard for.

Cleaning up fine fire fuels is the best way to make your property safer and that includes regular gutter cleaning and sometimes roof sweeping too.

Now we find that our iconic landscapes are under threat from ill informed laws that will not protect our communities from the threat of bushfire.






This measure will not make all houses safer. The science is clear, trees around your house reduce both wind speed and ember attack - two of the most important factors in house survivability, and this is reiterated on the CFA website in information around fire preparedness. This was further reiterated in testimony by one of the CSIRO's bushfire experts, Justin Leonard to the Royal Commission hearings.

We are fortunate to live in a unique environment, some areas are of state significance, Yarra Ranges requires a far more sophisticated approach to vegetation management if we are protect our scenic values and biodiversity. Imagine if landowners actually applied the 10/30 rights, we would see wholesale change in our environment whilst exacerbating the risk of landslip and erosion.

A new group, Living with the bush, has been launched in response to the 10/30 rights. Living with the Bush says “Improving community safety in the face of increasing risk from bushfires is not a choice between human welfare and environmental integrity. This is a false choice and if pursued will result in giving people a false sense of security while ignoring other more important safety measures."

If you are one of the many residents concerned about the new 10/30 rights, and I know a lot of you are from the amount of conversations I have already had about this issue, I recommend you visit to the Living with the Bush website.

I'm told that their membership is nearing 200 already, this is clearly an issue of grave concern to the community.

an unintended consequence for the dandenongs

Today the Premier announced the introduction of new planning provisions for the clearing of native vegetation for bushfire protection. The Shire of Yarra Ranges is one of the municipalities affected by the proposed changes, which are yet to be enacted.

The measures include:
- The introduction of the 10/30 right. This will enable residents to clear all vegetation within 10 metres of a building used for accommodation for bushfire protection and any vegetation (except for trees) to be cleared within an additional 20 metres.
- Changes to fence line clearing provisions. This will enable residents to clear all vegetation along boundary fence lines of their property to a maximum combined width of 4 metres.

But will the 10/30 right protect our communities against bushfire?

By reacting to Black Saturday bushfires and pre-empting the Royal Commission’s recommendations in relation to vegetation the Premier puts at risk people in the Dandenongs with the unintended consequence of landslip. Much of the land in the Dandenongs is classified as a land slip zone (erosion management overlay), the shire’s practice notes are explicit in the importance of retaining natural vegetation wherever possible to avoid landslip.

The CFA recommends that a protective shield of trees be planted around the house to slow the wind, cut down radiant heat and catch flying embers.

In some parts of the Dandenongs where the allotments are relatively small (1/2 acre), if residents took up this option, there would not be one scrap of vegetation left. This could have serious consequences in managing landslip and erosion, let alone erode the natural assets and values we all enjoy as residents in this unique environment.

The CFA is explicit in its definition of fire fuels: dead undergrowth, fallen branches, woodpiles, leaves in gutters, long dry grass, fallen leaves and twigs, Anything smaller in diameter than your little finger is a fine fuel and it is these that you need to clean up around your property to protect against bushfire attack. I can understand residents nervousness as we approach this fire season but we must concentrate on clearing our properties of fire fuels and not accept a blanket, indiscriminate approach to vegetation removal.

In notes released to support 10/30 rights the government makes reference to landslip and recommends that residents consider pruning their trees rather than remove them, however if the government was genuine about addressing the risk of landslip, vegetation in landslip areas should not be part of the 10/30 right.

The government is under pressure to act but it must make sure that community safety is paramount. The question I have is will the 10/30 right achieve this?