For property developers in Melbourne’s Eastern Suburbs, trees are no longer simply a landscaping consideration — they are a significant planning constraint that can determine site yield, design flexibility, and project timelines. With the introduction of Amendment VC289 on 15 September 2025 and the updated Australian Standard AS 4970:2025, the regulatory landscape governing Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) has undergone its most substantial transformation in over a decade. Understanding these changes is now essential to any viable development strategy across the City of Whitehorse, City of Boroondara, Manningham City Council, City of Monash, Knox City Council, and Maroondah City Council.
This article outlines the current framework for tree protection in Victoria, explains how TPZs are calculated under the updated standard, and provides practical guidance on how developers may navigate these constraints during the planning permit process. Whether you are assessing a site for subdivision, a multi-dwelling development, or a dual occupancy, early engagement with tree protection requirements could be the difference between a smooth approval and a costly redesign.
SQM Architects has delivered a substantial portfolio of projects across Melbourne’s Eastern Suburbs. A consistent factor in that track record is early, thorough site assessment — including arboricultural analysis — before a single line is drawn.
What Is a Tree Protection Zone?
A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is a defined area around a tree — both above and below ground — that must be protected from construction activity to preserve the tree’s root system, structural integrity, and long-term health. Under the updated Australian Standard AS 4970:2025 (which superseded AS 4970-2009 from 30 May 2025), the TPZ is now calculated by multiplying the tree’s Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) — measured at 1.4 metres above ground level — by 12. This replaces the former Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) measurement, though the calculation method itself remains unchanged.
Importantly, AS 4970:2025 has introduced a terminological distinction that developers and their consultants need to understand. What was previously called the TPZ in the old standard is now referred to as the Notional Root Zone (NRZ) — the theoretical full extent of a tree’s root system. The TPZ now specifically refers to the area that will actually be fenced and protected during construction. This distinction matters because it affects how encroachment is assessed and reported in arboricultural documentation submitted with planning permit applications.
The Structural Root Zone (SRZ) remains a separate, inner zone representing the critical area closest to the trunk where root damage would most severely compromise the tree’s stability. Any encroachment into the SRZ is now classified as major encroachment under AS 4970:2025, requiring detailed arboricultural justification and Tree Protection Specifications (TPS) — formerly called a Tree Management Plan.
The Three Encroachment Categories Under AS 4970:2025
One of the most practically significant changes in AS 4970:2025 is the expansion from two to three encroachment categories. This refinement may allow more trees to be classified as retainable — particularly on constrained urban sites — which has direct implications for development feasibility assessments.
- Minor encroachment: NRZ encroachment of 10% or less, with no SRZ intrusion and no recent known NRZ encroachments. Significant impact to tree health is considered unlikely, provided appropriate protection measures are implemented during construction.
- Moderate encroachment: NRZ encroachment of between 11% and 20%, with no SRZ intrusion. A project arborist must review impacts and may need to undertake further investigation to demonstrate the tree will remain viable. Suitable design measures and construction controls are required.
- Major encroachment: NRZ encroachment exceeding 20% and/or any SRZ intrusion. The project arborist must demonstrate tree viability, potentially through non-destructive root investigation, soil analysis, and review of historical records. Detailed Tree Protection Specifications are mandatory.
For developers, the introduction of the moderate category may provide greater flexibility in design. Previously, encroachment that fell between minor and major thresholds was often treated conservatively, leading to tree removal recommendations. Under AS 4970:2025, a moderate encroachment finding opens the door to mitigation measures that could allow a tree to be retained — potentially satisfying canopy cover requirements under the new Clause 52.37 without additional planting obligations.
Amendment VC289 and Clause 52.37: The New Statewide Canopy Tree Framework
From 15 September 2025, Amendment VC289 introduced Clause 52.37 (Canopy Trees) into all Victorian planning schemes. This is the most significant statewide tree protection reform in Victoria’s planning history, replacing the patchwork of local law permits that previously governed canopy tree removal in residential zones. For developers operating across multiple council areas in Melbourne’s Eastern Suburbs, this creates a more consistent — but also more demanding — regulatory baseline.
Get the 10-page Site Assessment Checklist Melbourne developers use to evaluate sites before committing capital. Free PDF, instant download.
- Zone, overlay & setback checks
- Dwelling capacity estimation
- Council-specific red flags
Something went wrong. Please try again.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Check your inbox — your checklist is on its way.
Under Clause 52.37, a canopy tree is defined as a tree that has all of the following characteristics:
- A height of more than 5 metres above ground level
- A trunk circumference of more than 0.5 metres, measured at 1.4 metres above ground level
- A canopy diameter of at least 4 metres
A planning permit is required to remove, destroy, or lop a canopy tree in the Mixed Use Zone, Township Zone, Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone, and Housing Choice and Transport Zone — in specific circumstances. The Low Density Residential Zone is excluded from these requirements.
When Is a Permit Required?
The permit trigger depends on the development context of the land. For detailed guidance on tree removal laws in Victoria, including permit requirements and penalties, refer to our dedicated guide.
- Anywhere on the lot — where the land is vacant, or where the land is vacant and a new single dwelling is proposed (requiring only a building permit).
- Within 6 metres of the narrowest street frontage and 4.5 metres of the rear boundary — where the land contains an existing dwelling (with or without proposed development), or where a planning permit application is being assessed for one or more dwellings.
This spatial trigger is particularly relevant for developers pursuing medium-density projects. A canopy tree located beyond the 6-metre street frontage setback and 4.5-metre rear boundary buffer may not require a separate permit for removal — but it will still need to be accounted for in canopy cover calculations and may be subject to other overlay controls.
Minimum Canopy Cover Requirements
Clause 52.37-3 introduces mandatory minimum canopy cover requirements that apply to most residential development applications. These requirements are designed to ensure that development does not result in a net loss of urban canopy cover. Developers should also consider how these requirements interact with minimum garden area requirements under the Victorian planning scheme.
- Sites up to 1,000 square metres: minimum 10% canopy cover (approximately 4 canopy trees on a 700m² site)
- Sites greater than 1,000 square metres: minimum 20% canopy cover
Canopy cover requirements may be met by retaining existing canopy trees, planting new canopy trees, or a combination of both. Any new canopy tree planted must be a species that will, at maturity, reach a minimum height of 6 metres above ground level and a minimum canopy diameter of 4 metres. These are minimum specifications — councils may consider larger species and potentially reduce the required number of trees accordingly.
Assessment and Review Pathways
Applications triggered solely by Clause 52.37 may be eligible for the VicSmart assessment process, which targets a decision within 10 business days. Where VicSmart applies, notice of the application is not required and the responsible authority’s decision cannot be reviewed by VCAT. However, an applicant may apply to VCAT to review a decision to refuse a permit.
The responsible authority must balance the merits of the proposal, the impact on canopy cover, and how any proposed development supports housing targets. Critically, the decision guidelines under Clause 52.37 do not extend to broader state policies, Municipal Planning Strategy, or local planning policies — the assessment is confined to the specific criteria within the clause itself.
Overlay Controls: An Additional Layer of Constraint
Clause 52.37 operates alongside — not instead of — existing overlay controls. Developers in Melbourne’s Eastern Suburbs may encounter several overlays that impose additional tree protection requirements, independent of the new canopy tree provisions. For a broader overview of how overlays interact with residential development, see our guide to Victoria planning regulations.
Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO)
The VPO protects significant vegetation in both urban and rural environments. It may apply to individual trees, groups of trees, or broader areas of vegetation. A planning permit is required to remove, destroy, or lop any vegetation specified in the relevant schedule. The VPO is commonly encountered in established residential areas across Boroondara and Manningham, where mature exotic and native trees contribute to neighbourhood character.
Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO)
The SLO is used to protect landscapes of identified significance. In the Eastern Suburbs, the Yarra River corridor is subject to permanent SLO and Design and Development Overlay (DDO) controls introduced by Amendment VC197, which applies across Boroondara and Manningham planning schemes, among others. These controls include specific tree protection requirements and have been updated to align with AS 4970:2025 terminology, including the replacement of "critical root zone" with "tree protection zone" in decision guidelines.
Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO)
The ESO protects areas of environmental significance, including habitat for native fauna. Where an ESO applies, a planning permit may be required to remove vegetation regardless of whether it meets the Clause 52.37 canopy tree definition. Developers in Manningham and Knox should be particularly attentive to ESO coverage given the proximity of these areas to significant bushland and waterway corridors.
Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO)
The BMO creates permit exemptions that override other vegetation removal requirements, including overlay controls, where works are necessary for bushfire protection. This is relevant for sites in Maroondah and Knox that fall within or adjacent to BMO-mapped areas. However, BMO exemptions are specific and limited — they do not provide blanket authority to remove trees, and arboricultural advice is still recommended before any works proceed.
Practical Implications for Eastern Suburbs Developers
The combined effect of Clause 52.37, AS 4970:2025, and existing overlay controls means that tree protection is now a first-order consideration in site assessment — not an afterthought addressed during permit documentation. Developers who engage arboricultural consultants early in the design process are better positioned to maximise site yield, avoid costly redesigns, and present planning permit applications that demonstrate genuine consideration of canopy retention. For a broader understanding of how site constraints interact with development potential, see our overview of site coverage requirements in Victoria.
Early Site Assessment Is Critical
Before any concept design is prepared, a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF Level V or equivalent) should assess all trees on and adjacent to the site. The arborist’s report should identify which trees meet the Clause 52.37 canopy tree definition, calculate TPZs and NRZs under AS 4970:2025, assess tree health and structural condition, and identify any overlay protections that apply. This information directly informs the building envelope and setback strategy.
Design Around TPZs, Not Against Them
Where significant canopy trees are present, the most effective development strategy is often to design around them rather than seek their removal. Retaining existing canopy trees satisfies Clause 52.37-3 canopy cover requirements, reduces the number of replacement trees required, and may present a more favourable planning argument — particularly in councils such as the City of Boroondara and Manningham City Council, where tree retention is weighted heavily in planning decisions.
Document Encroachment Carefully
Where development does encroach into the NRZ of a retained tree, the encroachment must be documented and categorised under AS 4970:2025. Tree Protection Specifications (TPS) and a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) — a site drawing showing TPZ fencing locations — must be prepared and provided to all workers on site. Failure to comply with these documents may constitute a breach of the planning permit and attract enforcement action.
Understand Cumulative Impact Provisions
Clause 52.37 requires the responsible authority to consider the cumulative impact of canopy tree removal, including any trees removed, destroyed, or lopped within the past 12 months. Developers who have recently cleared trees on a site — even under a local law permit prior to VC289 — may find this history weighs against a subsequent application to remove further canopy trees. Maintaining accurate records of any prior tree works is advisable.
Council-Specific Considerations in the Eastern Suburbs
While Clause 52.37 creates a statewide baseline, individual councils in Melbourne’s Eastern Suburbs retain the ability to apply additional controls through overlays and zone schedules. Developers should be aware of the following council-specific considerations when conducting site assessments.
- City of Boroondara: Extensive VPO coverage across established residential areas. Many significant trees are also protected under local heritage overlays. Early arboricultural assessment is essential on any site with mature vegetation.
- Manningham City Council: Significant Landscape Overlay applies across much of the Yarra River corridor and surrounding residential areas. The council has historically applied a strong weighting to canopy retention in planning decisions.
- City of Whitehorse: A mix of VPO and ESO coverage, particularly in areas adjoining Dandenong Creek and its tributaries. Zone schedules in some areas specify canopy planting requirements for single dwelling applications.
- City of Monash: Increasing medium-density development pressure in areas with established canopy. Clause 52.37 canopy cover requirements will apply to the majority of multi-dwelling applications.
- Knox City Council: Proximity to Dandenong Ranges and significant bushland means ESO and BMO overlays are commonly encountered. Native vegetation provisions may also apply on larger lots.
- Maroondah City Council: Active urban forest programme with canopy cover targets. Council has historically supported tree retention in planning decisions and is likely to apply Clause 52.37 requirements with rigour.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between the Notional Root Zone and the Tree Protection Zone under AS 4970:2025?
Under AS 4970:2025, the Notional Root Zone (NRZ) is the theoretical full extent of a tree’s root system, calculated by multiplying the Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) by 12. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) now refers specifically to the area that will actually be fenced and protected during construction — which may be smaller than the NRZ depending on site constraints and approved encroachment levels. Both terms replace the single "TPZ" concept used in the superseded AS 4970-2009.
Does Clause 52.37 apply to all trees on a development site?
No. Clause 52.37 applies only to trees that meet the definition of a "canopy tree" — that is, a tree more than 5 metres in height, with a trunk circumference greater than 0.5 metres measured at 1.4 metres above ground level, and a canopy diameter of at least 4 metres. Trees that do not meet all three criteria are not subject to the Clause 52.37 permit requirement, though they may still be protected under overlay controls.
Can a planning permit to remove a canopy tree be refused even if the tree is in poor health?
The health and structural condition of the tree is one of the decision guidelines under Clause 52.37, and a tree in poor health may support a permit application for removal. However, the responsible authority must also consider canopy cover requirements, cumulative impacts, and whether the proposed development has been designed to minimise impacts on canopy trees. An arborist report documenting the tree’s condition is essential supporting information for any such application.
How do transitional provisions under VC289 affect existing planning permit applications?
Clause 52.37 includes transitional provisions that may exempt planning permit applications lodged before 15 September 2025 from the new requirements. However, developers should be aware that any amendment to an existing application under sections 50, 50A, or 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 that effectively resets the application date may remove these transitional protections. Legal and planning advice is recommended before amending any application that may be affected.
What documentation is required to support a tree removal application under Clause 52.37?
Applications will generally need to include an arboricultural assessment confirming the tree’s canopy status, health, and TPZ; a landscape plan demonstrating how canopy cover requirements will be met at maturity; and, where development is proposed, evidence that the design has been sited to minimise impacts on canopy trees. The specific information requirements are set out in Clause 52.37 of the relevant planning scheme.
Are there any exemptions from the Clause 52.37 permit requirement?
Yes. Permit exemptions may apply where the canopy tree is dead (supported by photographic evidence or an arborist report), where removal is required for fire protection under the Bushfire Management Overlay, or where the tree is a noxious or environmental weed. The Low Density Residential Zone is also excluded from Clause 52.37 requirements. Developers should confirm applicable exemptions with a qualified planning consultant before proceeding with any tree removal.
How does Clause 52.37 interact with council local laws on tree protection?
Amendment VC289 replaces the local law permit process for canopy tree removal in residential zones, creating a consistent statewide approach. However, local laws cannot be inconsistent with the planning scheme, and councils may still apply additional controls through overlays and zone schedules. Developers should check both the planning scheme and any applicable local laws when assessing tree removal requirements on a specific site.
Conclusion
Tree Protection Zones are now one of the most consequential development constraints facing property developers in Melbourne’s Eastern Suburbs. The introduction of Clause 52.37 under Amendment VC289, combined with the updated AS 4970:2025 standard, has created a more demanding and more consistent regulatory environment for canopy tree protection across Victoria. Developers who treat tree assessment as an early-stage design input — rather than a late-stage compliance exercise — are generally better positioned to support planning outcomes, site yield, and approval timelines.
SQM Architects has extensive experience delivering residential and multi-dwelling projects across the Eastern Suburbs. Early site assessment, arboricultural coordination, and design responses that genuinely address canopy retention are the foundations of successful planning permit applications in this environment.
Book a Strategy Call — contact SQM Architects to discuss how tree protection constraints may affect your next Eastern Suburbs development.
This article provides general information about Victorian planning for property developers. It does not constitute professional advice. For specific guidance on your project, contact SQM Architects for a complimentary site assessment.
