A Planning Policy to Prevent Unwarranted Destruction of Removal of Native Vegetation - Essay Example

Tree removal controls (the Vegetation Protection Overlay) Name Course Course unit Institution Name Tree removal controls (the Vegetation Protection Overlay) Introduction As an element of planning, Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO, Clause 42.02) is applied by councils in Victoria to regulate native tree removal, or lopping or destruction of non-native and native and vegetation. The VPO was particularly designed to conserve and protect native vegetation in both rural and urban places. It relates to individual native trees, areas with substantial amount of vegetation and groups of trees. Its key purpose is to ensure significant amounts of vegetation are protected, urban and rural development does not cause vegetation loss, existing vegetation and trees are preserved, native vegetation become regenerated, habitat for indigenous animals are protected and that areas designated for vegetation protection are recognised for their significance or value. This essay evaluates VPO, by evaluating its weaknesses and strengths. The VPO is an effectively constructed planning policy that serves to prevent unwarranted destruction of removal of native vegetation. Under this VPO, the requirements for planning permits are distinct under Clause 52.17. This implies that where planning permit is needed for removal of native trees, permission has to be sought from the authority in charge, which is in this case the local council in the place where the tree has to be removed (DPCD 2015). Indeed, as provided for by Clause 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP), to prevent unwarranted destruction of removal of native vegetation, a planning permit is needed for one to lop or remove native vegetation (DPCD 1999). In other words, the VPO is made up of two fundamental features, a set of policies and an enforcement agency – which is the government. Indeed, as explained by Conroy and Berke (2004), an effective planning policy has to be made up of two essential components. The first is a combination of ‘policy fundamentals’ that collectively make up an effective policy development process. The second is the government, whether local, state, or federal government, which performs a set of roles once the policy becomes implemented (Sciara 2015). What makes VPO particularly effective for planning controlled tree removal is that it answers several critical questions for realising its objective of protecting and conserving native vegetation. For instance, VPO answers critical questions on what needs to be protected, as it provides details on the types of vegetation to be protected, such as native trees. It also outlines the reasons why the native vegetations are being protected, such as for habitat value. Third, it also specifies how the native vegetation should be protected. Lastly, it also specifies associated requirements that should be applied to the land, such as native vegetation provisions (GMW 2011). The VPO has provided an effective statement of nature that provides details of the importance of protecting native vegetation. This is particularly significant, as it clarifies to stakeholders, including loggers, the significance of protecting native vegetation. Normally, without such a statement, loggers and the general public may fail to understand their individual responsibilities in protecting the environment (Ballarat 2014). It is also a vital aspect of ensuring planned tree cutting, as a means to environmental protection. In essence, the statement of nature makes it easy for stakeholders, including tree loggers and conservationists and the public, the importance of native vegetation within the municipality as the fundamental biotic environmental elements contributing to proper functioning of the ecosystem (Banyule 2012). The details provided include protection of native plant diversity, provision of habitat to flora and fauna, and prevention of soil erosion and salinity. In all, the overlay is applicable to all kinds of native vegetation components, such as shrubs, trees as well as species living in ground layers. However, it does not apply to exotic species. This makes it ineffective in controlling diversity of vegetation. The goals and objectives of the VPO are sufficiently defined as well as correctly framed. The manner in which the policy seeks to attain high-level policy goals in a bid to realise environmental protection are described elaborately. Indeed, VPO’s key objectives include the protection of rare native species and ecological vegetations that are under threat. It also aims to protect vital vegetation communities in the municipality. Additionally, it seeks to protect rare and threatened populations of native flora and fauna in the municipality. Additional objectives include prevention of the destruction degradation of vital fauna and habitat that are at risk of extinction. The outlay also serves to protect native vegetation, which contribute to effective functioning of landscape by providing a link between avoidance and control of soil erosion and salinity (Irvin & Stansbry n.d.). By relying on Clause 52.17 planning scheme for protection and conservation of native vegetation, the objectives of the VPO become more specific and relatable to real life situations. The clause seeks to protect and promote the conservation of native vegetation, minimise the effects of degradation of water and land, conserve the natural habitat of animal and plant life through careful planning and design. Conversely, it seeks to prevent destruction of native vegetation, and in case this cannot be prevented, curtail the removal of vegetation using proper planning and design (GMW 2011). In essence, it could be reasoned that the VPO is a proper planning tool for protection and conservation of native remnant native vegetation, as it seeks to check against extensive clearance of vegetation. Despite this, it may still have restricted applicability or relevance in urbanised locations that have small lot sizes, given that native vegetation are characteristically found in rural areas (Heath et al. 2006). This is despite the fact that the VPO was particularly designed to conserve and protect native vegetation in both rural and urban places (GMW 2011). The VPO does precisely reveal identifiable and attainable objectives. Put differently, it seeks to ensure transparency in the manner in which the planning policy and provisions would be carried out. For instance, it specifies how involve the many reasons for protection of vegetation would be weighed up. This may include the principal rationale for the importance of a tree by weighing up its habitat value against its cultural value. In which case, the tree may have Aboriginal importance or be valued for its value in provided natural habitat to certain endangered plant and animal species. As a result, the VPO appropriately identifies relatable and achievable objectives (GMW 2011). The VPO also outlines specific requirements or provisions for achieving the specified objective. Within the context of urban areas, it could be reasoned that built environmental may have vital implications on vegetation. For instance, they may intrude on the root zone of some native trees. In such instance, the VPO recommends some provisions, including requiring that a permit be obtained before the removal of trees from the concerned authority, who would have to inspect the trees to be removed and ascertain their overall impacts on the surrounding environment. In which case, if there is a perceived need to protect the root zone, then the schedule may only demand that a permit for some distance from the vegetation has to be obtained. Essentially, the VPO specifies that a permit from a responsible authority is required to remove trees or any other vegetation that has been specified in the list of the overlay. The authorising agency has to specify the vegetation that is to be affected as well as set up a statement of the nature and value of the vegetation targeted for protection, indicate whether objectives of VPO have been achieved as well as whether decision guidelines for permit provision have been fulfilled. Additionally, the area of interest has to be indicated geographically on the planning map (Hallsworth & Rutter 2011). The VPO is adaptive, as it allows local policies to inform the planning scheme or decisions. Clearly, the VPO appears to be suitably designed to strengthen and stress extensive range of strategic objectives. For instance, in certain locations in Victoria where the council considers vegetation as critical for its wide planning objectives, the VPO leaves room for a more specific policy for protection of the environment (DPCD 1999). An example is the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme. However, the VPO does not take buildings or manmade infrastructure into perspective, despite the fact that natural environment and the build environment do correlate in a typical environment. Therefore, it could be reasoned that the VPO is an appropriate tool for identification and protection of the vegetation, where the built environment is not to be taken into perspective. This only shows that the VPO can be used limitedly, specifically in areas where buildings are not given a priority (DPCD 1999). To a small extent however, VPO can also be considered to consider certain kinds of infrastructure in its list of priorities. In particular, it exempts certain kinds of vegetation for overly requirements. For instance, VPO does not apply to vegetation listed in Clause 42.02-2, such as vegetation near electric poles or those for emergency access (DPCD 1999). It is also clear that the VPO does not include the community in its objectives. This is particularly detrimental in planning, as the community has to be made to feel involved in a project. It is therefore conceivable that for the community to have a sense of ownership for the VPO objectives, it has to feel involved in creating strategic goals and objectives. On the other hand, when the community is left at bay, the positive outcomes the planning scheme seeks to attain may not be well understood or be given support (Irvin & Stansbry n.d). Conclusion The VPO is an effectively constructed planning policy that serves to prevent unwarranted destruction of removal of trees. As established, it provides an effective statement of nature that provides details of the importance of protecting native vegetation. The goals and objectives of the VPO are sufficiently defined as well as correctly framed. The manner in which the policy seeks to attain high-level policy goals in a bid to realise environmental protection are described elaborately. Additionally, by relying on Clause 52.17 planning scheme for protection and conservation of native vegetation, the objectives of the VPO become more specific and relatable to real life situations. It also ensures transparency in the manner in which the planning policy and provisions would be carried out. The VPO is adaptive, as it allows local policies to inform the planning scheme or decisions. However, the VPO does not take buildings or manmade infrastructure into perspective. It is also clear that the VPO does not include the community in its objectives. Therefore, it is recommended that the VPO be reviewed to take the build environment into perspective. It should also include the community in its objectives. Reference Ballarat 2014, "Schedule 1: To The Vegetation Protection Overlay," Ballarat Planning Scheme, viewed 7 10 2016, Banyule 2012, Schedule 5 To The Vegetation Protection Overlay," Banyule Planning Scheme, viewed 7 Oct 2016, Conroy, M & Berke, P 2004, "What makes a good sustainable development plan? An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development," Environment and Planning, vol 36, p.1381-1396 DPCD 1999, Vegetation protection in urban areas, viewed 7 Oct 2016, DPCD 2015, 52.17 Native Vegetation, viewed 7 OCt 2016, GMW 2011, Native Vegetation Code Of Practice, viewed 7 2017, Hallsworth, M & Rutter, J 2011, Making Policy Better Improving Whitehall’s Core Business, London, Carlton Gardens Heath, G, Brownson, R, Kruger, J, Miles, R et al. 2006, "The Effectiveness of Urban Design and Land Use and Transport Policies and Practices to Increase Physical Activity: A Systematic Review," Journal of Physical Activity and Health, vol3, Suppl 1, pp.S55-S76 Irvin, R & Stansbry, J n.d., Citizen Participation in Decision-Making: Is it Worth the Effort? Viewed 7 Oct 2016, Sciara, G 2015, "Measuring Land Use Performance: Policy, Plan, And Outcome," A White Paper from the National Center for Sustainable Transportation, October 2015 Read More