The National Trust has called upon the State Government to meaningfully include heritage considerations in the new Plan for Victoria.

“Heritage is about more than a history lesson” 

True. We get so much more than a history lesson when we engage with heritage including mental and physical health benefits, friendships and networks, connections with place, skills and confidence. For example, ‘exercise’ and ‘socialising with friends’ are the main reasons for visiting parks in Victoria which are often as important for their cultural heritage as their natural heritage… (Why Heritage, 2023)

Cultural landscapes such as green space in more urban contexts contribute environmentally, socially, and economically across Victoria. It is well known that trees, parks and gardens mitigate the urban heat island effect and provide health benefits to the community, as well as creating healthier ecosystems with a greater biodiversity.   

Furthermore, green space is essential to wellbeing and liveability in areas with increasing population density and development pressures. In any areas of unlocked land made available for new housing, significant heritage, environmental and cultural landscape values should be assessed and considered. 

The National Trust fully supports the state government’s intention to increase tree and urban green spaces through the new Plan for Victoria. However, there is a clear misalignment of this intention and the implementation of planning for housing targets being drafted.  

The need for increased housing density to accommodate future population increases will exacerbate pressures on our existing green spaces. As a minimum, current green space benchmarks must be maintained as we face a changing climate. To effectively mitigate these changes, the net amount of green space across both public and private open space will need to increase. 

Therefore, the 80% capacity for development in Significant Landscape and Environmental Overlays in the draft housing targets plan is entirely contrary to the delivery of the above “Big Idea.” For example, if land in a Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) is identified as suitable for development, the housing draft plan specifies that 80% of the developable land in that area is considered capable of supporting the proposed development. This means that, of the land within the SLO that can be developed, most of it (80%) is expected to be able to handle the new development, while the remaining 20% may face restrictions or challenges that prevent it from being developed.

Not only does this proposal disregard the very purpose of these overlays to protect significant landscapes and trees, but it also highlights the dire need to address the under-prioritisation of urban environmental and tree protections that might be seen as standing in the way of economic development outcomes.  

In cases of new development, measures should be put in place to prevent development sites from being ‘moonscaped’ and mandate the retention of trees and vegetation cover overall. Ideally, the carbon footprint of a site should not be increased. Currently, landscaping is often seen as an ‘afterthought’ in a new development, not as an integral component, and is confined to the perimeter of the site. The practice of utilising neighbouring properties to fulfil landscaping obligations should also be prohibited (e.g. overhanging tree canopies). Planning policy should also require increases in canopy cover, and tree management policies which take the impacts of climate change into account.   

Many areas identified for housing growth have low existing open space provision, as these suburbs originally provided higher amounts of private open space. For example, at an SA3 level, the inner-city areas of Melbourne City (14.9%), Port Phillip (11.2%) and Yarra (10.8%) have significantly higher percentages of public open space than Kingston (4.6%), Monash (4.8%) and Glen Eira (4.2%). Even Boroondara, colloquially known as the ‘leafy east’, has only 5.1% public open space. Private open space will be significantly reduced in these areas due to in-fill development, while the demand for public open space to accommodate increased population density will increase. Trees on private property, which are an essential component of our urban forest, will be particularly affected as these are the first casualty of development and subdivision. It is vital we plan for a net increase in green space now and this must consider the inevitable reduction in private open space resulting from future housing density forecasts. Without this planning, communities will suffer higher impacts from climate change than is necessary.   

The National Trust strongly supports the statutory protection of trees in both the public and private realms, and advocates for the protection of trees through the National Trusts of Australia Register of Significant Trees, which includes over 20,000 trees in 1,200 locations in Victoria.  

While a number of councils in Victoria protect significant trees under mechanisms such as local laws and registers of significant trees, there is a lack of consistency across the state in protections. There is also a lack of legislation or local provisions in the planning scheme to support these registers of significant trees or local laws.   

Planning Practice Note 7, Vegetation Protection in Urban Areas, provides guidance for the assessment and protection of significant vegetation in urban areas, however, it has not been updated since 1999. This practice note is now being reviewed; however, we would like to see this done in consultation with local government, experts, communities and key stakeholders such as the National Trust. A program of professional development and promotion should also be provided to local government to encourage the implementation of policies for protecting significant vegetation.  Provision, funding and maintenance of green spaces necessitates planning and resourcing equal to that of other forms of community infrastructure.