In recent years STEP has become increasingly concerned about the proliferation of Spanish Moss on our local trees and its potential impact on our bushland. So in December 2023 we asked members to send us details of any Spanish Moss they have seen growing on trees. We then undertook a preliminary survey from Cowan to Marrickville to determine what tree species it grew on. What we found horrified us.

Trees most affected by Spanish Moss

Turpentine (Syncarpia glomulifera) is the most severely affected of all the 76+ species of plants we recorded Spanish Moss growing in. Infestations can be so dense and widespread that whole trees are festooned. Spanish Moss flourishes over Turpentine leaves and worryingly it appears it may be able to kill mature trees by preventing photosynthesis. Locally, Turpentines are important trees in the critically endangered Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest and Blue Gum High Forest as well as in sandstone gullies. Their loss would be disastrous. Worse still, Turpentines are common trees in fertile forests from the Queensland border to near Ulladulla and our evidence suggests that Spanish Moss could damage Turpentines all the way along the coast and ranges. We are not sure why it flourishes so well on Turpentines but we are prepared to speculate that leachates from the fungi on the leaves encourages its growth.

More bad news for our rainforests and wet sclerophyll forests is that Lilly Pilly (Acmena smithii), Cheese Tree (Glochidion ferdinandi) and Brush Box (Lophostemon confertus), all major components of our east coast rainforest, can be severely affected while Coachwood (Ceratopetalum apetalum) and Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus) can certainly carry Spanish Moss. In addition to causing damaged or dead trees, threats to ecosystems include subtle effects such as altered water and nutrient cycles, changed predator/prey interactions, habitat alteration, moderation of the microclimate and transformed fire regimes. Changes such as these are some of the greatest conservation threats to biodiversity in Australia.

The good news is that eucalypts, bloodwoods and Sydney Red Gum (Angophora costata) seem to be resistant to it. We only repeatedly recorded Spanish Moss flourishing on Red Mahogany (Eucalyptus resinifera).

How it spreads

Spanish Moss is obviously well loved by many gardeners, but STEP is not sure that gardeners realise how rapidly it can grow and spread. What today may be a gentle grey ornamental addition to the garden may overwhelm it with dense heavy screens of moss up to 3 m long over a few years. Overseas, festoons over 8 m long have been recorded. The artistic addition to the garden today may be a nightmare tomorrow. You may think that your garden is safely distant from bushland, but we recorded a jump of 70 m from the nearest Spanish Moss when it was used by Noisy Miners in their nest. All gardens must therefore be viewed as sources of bushland infestations.

Spanish Moss can spread in several ways. Asexual spread can occur with the tip of plants blowing in the wind and becoming entangled in other parts of the plant or a different plant. Birds are obvious dispersers as they move Spanish Moss for nest construction.

Physical control will be difficult as it is an air plant and has no contact with the ground. In most cases we found it out of reach, sometimes 15 m up a tree. We haven’t trialled chemical control methods used in the USA, but they are listed in our report.

Recommendations

• Gardeners remove all moss they can reach, put it in their green bin and prevent spread.
• Local authorities such as local councils and NPWS remove it from all public places, including trees on nature strips.
• Add Spanish Moss to the next iteration of the Greater Sydney Regional Strategic Weed Management Plan and all other relevant regional strategic weed management plans.
• Classify Spanish Moss at a level that enables its eradication and containment, prohibition of sale and distribution, e.g. as a regional priority weed.
• Undertake research into why Turpentines are a favoured host and the ecological effects of Spanish Moss on bushland.
• Undertake research into control methods.

Swaying veils of grey in dead or dying trees and simplified bushland is not something to look forward to. Let’s not risk it.

Read our full report or check out our website.

The NSW government announced new planning laws in late-2023 that will radically change the landscape by increasing housing density at the expense of tree canopy, heritage design and landscape character. The changes are focussed on locations near to public transport with development of low to mid-rise housing within 800 m of stations and local centres.

In addition, Ku-ring-gai has been identified as a location for more intense development near Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville stations defined as Transport Oriented Development or TOD for short. This imposes 6 storeys within 400 m of the stations regardless of current zoning, with greater heights of 7 or 8 storeys if affordable dwellings are included. In the town centre zones slightly higher flats are proposed of 7 to 9 storeys.

Council has been fighting against the imposition of these changes by taking legal action in the Land and Environment Court. The detail of this action is confidential.

The whole community is concerned about the legislation. These station areas contain prime examples of outstanding heritage architecture in wide tree-lined streets. Council has estimated that, if the proposals were to be fully implemented, over 400 properties in heritage conservation areas would be demolished plus another 136 properties would be next door to the TOD areas and would be negatively impacted.

Streetscapes and tree canopy cover would be lost because the policy does not provide for the essential space for tree survival such as minimum lot size, deep soil, adequate setbacks and minimum planting.

Alternative scenarios

Council has been examining alternative scenarios that could deliver a similar number of new dwellings to the government objectives but protect heritage conservation areas and change the planning parameters for construction so that tree canopy is protected. Of course there will have to be trade-offs.

Not only are the defined parameters bad for the character of the TOD areas but also council believes that they will not be attractive for developers to build so the government’s objectives will not be met. This applies in particular to construction in town centres where there are constraints caused by existing configurations. Council believes that shifting more of the extra dwellings into town centres via mixed commercial/residential buildings will be more financially viable for developers.

This highlights the situation that the ball is still in the court of developers to make things happen. There is no direct government investment in new housing projects.

Consultation

Council has analysed five possible scenarios that are consistent with the government’s estimates of 22,580 new dwellings within 15 years. The scenarios actually produce slightly higher estimates of 23,200.

The agenda papers from council’s meeting on 30 October provide a detailed description of the analysis that has been undertaken.

We have been asked to make submissions expressing views on these scenarios by 17 December. You can also complete a survey.

Council will consider community feedback in February 2025. If there is support for a preferred scenario council may ask for the government’s approval to exhibit it as a replacement for the government’s policy. The exhibition will be a further opportunity for the public to comment.

Consideration of constraints

The TOD SEPP applies blanket changes to planning rules within 400 m of Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville stations.

Council has examined the areas in detail to consider topography, existing development and financial feasibility. All these factors have been ignored in the state government’s simplistic one-size-fits-all changes. They have applied some basic principles to the analysis to select locations suited for the changes in planning rules, such as:

• to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and tree loss
• to minimise heritage impacts
• to manage transition from high rise to low density so that houses are not squeezed between high rise flats
• to revitalise town centres

An example of the difference between the TOD high rise parameters for residential buildings and the current council development control plan on a typical site of 2,000 m² is:

• TOD requires 1 to 2 medium trees
• council development control plan would require 6 to 7 large trees

The current tree canopy cover averages 34% in the TOD areas. This could be wiped out if the full redevelopment occurred.

The red circles in the map at the top of the page indicate where the TOD applies to areas with tree canopy cover over 30% in in Killara and Roseville.

Council’s five scenarios

Scenario 1

Based on the NSW government's existing TOD policy which zones areas within a 400 m radius of stations for 6 to 8 storey development with minimal protection for heritage or environmental areas.

Scenario 2a

Protects 78% of heritage neighbourhoods and allows building up to 25 storeys in town centres.

Scenario 2b

A minor amendment to the NSW government’s TOD policy, which protects 31% of heritage areas and allows buildings up to 15 storeys in town centres.

Scenario 3a

Preserves all heritage areas and delivers a high level of tree protection. However, it means very tall buildings in town centres - up to 45 storeys in Gordon.

Scenario 3b

Also preserves all heritage areas but to limit building heights in town centres to a maximum of 20 storeys, the apartment buildings are spread further from stations.

Trade-off

The major trade-off is in the town centres. The preservation of canopy and heritage comes at the cost of high-rise development in the town centres as shown in the table.

For comparison, note that the maximum height in Hornsby near the railway line will be 40 storeys.

There is more to come – dual occupancy

Council’s December meeting papers introduce detailed discussion of the next issue for increased housing density. That is the definition of minimum lot size where dual occupancy can be imposed in low density residential areas. The original announcement was that dual occupancy could be built in all low density residential areas with a minimum lot size of only 450 m².

The government has accepted that this development is unsuitable for some locations for bushfire risk, heritage and environmental reasons. Three options for minimum lot size definition is presented in this report for council's consideration. After discussion with the Department of Planning the options will be presented for public consultation in early-2025.

What about the longer term?

One issue that has not been considered is what happens beyond the projection period of 15 years. Sydney’s population is going to keep growing. The ABS’s latest forecast is for the NSW population to grow by another 2 million between 2041 and 2071 having grown by 1.6 million over the 15 years to 2041 that the housing plans are aiming to cater for.

In NSW, under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the maximum fine for illegal tree removal is $1.1 million for a corporation and $220,000 for an individual. This is in cases brought before the Land and Environment Court. But the usual range is from $1,000 to $100,000 per offence. Only 19 cases were prosecuted from 2018 to 2022. There have been other smaller fines imposed by councils. Few have been issued as it is difficult to catch the tree loppers in the act.

There have also been instances of major tree destruction in 2023 in Willoughby and Lane Cove with no prosecutions. There have been lots of council lobbying and petitions but no action so far by the NSW government.

There may be a sign of action soon. Recently Matt Cross, the member for Davidson, asked a question in the NSW parliament whether the Department of Planning and Environment is considering whether the current penalty framework for tree vandalism is effective. He received a positive response that:

The NSW government is consulting with councils as the primary regulator of illegal tree clearing and investigating opportunities to strengthen the current penalty framework and promote tree retention.

A positive sign but how long will this take?

We have previously described the process that Ku-ring-gai Council has been following to try to get land known as the Secret Garden at 1192 Pacific Highway, Pymble reclassified from community to operational land so that it could be sold. Council regards the land as a liability as its inaccessibility and location makes maintenance difficult and it is too small to provide open space benefits to the community.

The proposal was reviewed by an independent commissioner who recommended that the proposal not go ahead mainly because of the high biodiversity value from its classification as Blue Gum High Forest.

The issue was on the agenda of the meeting in October. The staff report recommended that the reclassification of the land should go ahead. This would enable other options to be considered for the site, most likely divestment. This would transfer cost of management, surveillance and use of the land, including care of the onsite mapped trees and vegetation, to a new owner. The landowner of the undeveloped land next door at 1190/1190A Pacific Highway, zoned for high density, has expressed interest in acquiring the land to augment their floor space ratio potential and to deliver the open space and tree planting requirements of their future development.

Despite many residents at the forum arguing against reclassification the councillors voted to proceed with the Department of Planning’s process to declare the land as operational land. They agreed to pursue an option to explore sale of the land to an adjacent property owner if it can be linked to a voluntary planning agreement that re-dedicates a material portion of the block back to the public. This would require improved public accessibility of this portion but also additional development rights elsewhere on the consolidated site. If the agreement cannot be achieved within four years, then Council may subsequently decide to reclassify the land back to community land.