By BRIDGET SCOTT
A PAKENHAM Upper resident fears that if the Cardoinia Shire Council forces him to replace the vegetation he removed from his property it will pose a huge fire hazard.
Earlier this year, Ed Kennedy and his wife were fined $50,000 for illegal building works and vegetation removal on their property.
The Mann road resident appeared at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 30 January this year and pleaded guilty to different offences, one of which included illegally removing native vegetation.
More than 12 months later, the couple has been issued with a 10-year vegetation management plan by the Cardinia Shire Council.
Mr Kennedy said this management plan encompassed around 80,000 square metres of his property, which is approximately one eighth of his land. He also added that it would mean the couple had to replant the vegetation they removed.
However the Pakenham Upper resident fears that replanting all of this vegetation will pose a huge fire risk come the hotter months.
“There is a conflict of interest between vegetation and what the CFA required,” he said.
“I don’t believe the community, with a fire risk, would support council revegetating.”
The council’s development and compliance services manager Brett Jackson said the plan “has not been finalised yet”.
“The council is seeking to have the land returned to its original state with the co-operation of the land owners,” he said.
“However, if that is unsuccessful, the council may need to commence enforcement action in VCAT.”
Mr Jackson also said that the council did have jurisdiction over the management of vegetation on this land to an extent.
“The Cardinia Shire Council is the ‘responsible authority’ under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and is therefore responsible for issuing (or refusing to issue) planning permits for the use and development of the land, including vegetation removal,” he said.
He said when he first applied for a permit, the council did consider the possibility of removing some growth.
“When considering the initial permit to build a house on the site, the council, along with the Victorian Government’s Department of Environment and Primary Industries, considered the proposed vegetation removal,” he said.
“The planning application was refused because building a house on the site would put lives at risk from bushfire and negatively impact the surrounding environment. The decision was appealed to VCAT which supported the council’s decision.”
Mr Kennedy said that that council had ordered the pair to “voluntarily enter in an agreement”.
“If we don’t they will take us back to VCAT and get it forcibly imposed,” he said.
“If we don’t pay for planting of the trees they will take further enforcement measures.”
Mr Kennedy also said that his neighbours, who were downhill from him, were pleased to see the trees and plants removed.
