Shire contradicts itself

In reading the agenda for this week’s Bass Coast Shire Council meeting, I came across what seems to be a glaring inconsistency.

At April’s council meeting, a notice of motion (F2) to redesign the Anderson St car park redevelopment in Cowes and save three mature Southern Mahogany trees was defeated, with the meeting minutes stating: “The species are Eucalyptus botryoides (Southern Mahogany) and are listed as a Victorian environmental weed and not indigenous to Phillip Island.”

One councillor was reported in the Sentinel-Times as saying, “I cringe when any vegetation is removed, and habitat lost to the wildlife. However, these trees are not Indigenous to the Island, and they can interbreed with other vegetation which is not what we want for our local vegetation.”

In the agenda for May’s council meeting, there is a planning application (H5) to remove four trees in Teddy Bear Lane, Cowes. Three of these are Southern Mahogany Trees. In this instance, the arboriculture report references two of these trees as “being of high environmental value… located on a site that abuts a vegetation reserve, they are considered to provide important habitat and contribute to the amenity of the area” and the recommendation is that these two trees are to be retained with only minimal lopping permitted.

Further, council officers state that their removal is not well supported under the Vegetation Protection Overlay and broader state and local policies within the Planning Policy Framework.

These two recommendations are contradictory.

Either Southern Mahogany trees are a problem that should be removed, or they form part of the local habitat and should be retained. Do the Vegetation Protection Overlay and Planning Policy support their retention or not?

Above everything else, Bass Coast Shire Council should demonstrate consistency in its decision making. The community deserves that.

Andrew Marston, Rhyll.