title: Planning Scheme Amendment VC289 - Canopy Trees Clause 52.37 council: greater-bendigo state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf
Planning Scheme Amendment VC289 - Canopy Trees Clause 52.37
Planning Scheme Amendment VC289 is significant because it converted canopy-tree removal from a largely site-specific or overlay-dependent question into a statewide planning permit trigger in certain circumstances. Greater Bendigo’s December 2025 agenda shows the practical transition problem: two live applications involved mature or canopy vegetation, but the new Clause 52.37 did not apply where the application or removal pre-dated the amendment’s commencement. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46; Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80)
Background
Amendment VC289 was gazetted on 15 September 2025 and introduced Clause 52.37, titled Canopy trees, into all Victorian planning schemes. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46; Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80) The agenda states that Clause 52.37 requires a planning permit to remove canopy trees in certain circumstances. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46) The agenda also records that Clause 52.37 contains transitional provisions exempting permit applications lodged before VC289’s approval date from the new clause requirements. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46)
The available Greater Bendigo evidence is not the amendment text itself, but two statutory-planning applications where officers explain how VC289 affects, or does not affect, current decision-making. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.45-90) At 42 Torrens Street, Marong, the childcare-centre application was lodged before 15 September 2025, so the new Clause 52.37 provisions did not apply to that application. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46) At 27 Hervey Street, Elmore, a large gum tree had been removed before Clause 52.37 commenced, and officers accepted that no permit had been required at the time of removal. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80)
Analysis
The Control Changes the Timing of Tree-Removal Risk
The central planning effect of VC289 is timing-based: after 15 September 2025, canopy-tree removal may require a permit under Clause 52.37, while applications lodged before that approval date can fall outside the new requirement through transitional provisions. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46) In practical terms, the control does not retrospectively capture all recent tree loss, because the Marong childcare-centre application was exempted due to its pre-15 September 2025 lodgement date. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46) The Elmore dwelling application shows the same temporal boundary from a different angle, because the large gum tree was removed before Clause 52.37 commenced and the landowner was recorded as having acted within their rights at that time. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80)
This matters for council assessment because the planning question shifts from whether tree loss is only a character or landscape consideration to whether tree removal itself is a permit-triggering act. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46; Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80) The agenda does not provide the full Clause 52.37 decision guidelines, so the exact assessment test for a post-VC289 canopy-tree removal application cannot be fully analysed from the available corpus. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46)
Marong Example: Existing Native Trees Remain Relevant Even When Clause 52.37 Does Not Apply
The 42 Torrens Street, Marong application proposed an 88-place childcare centre on a 2,054 square metre corner site at Torrens and Leslie Streets. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.46, 49) The site contained landscaped gardens and two large mature native trees in the front setback. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.47) The proposed development would remove all existing vegetation on the site, including the two large native trees in the Torrens Street frontage. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.56)
Although Clause 52.37 did not apply because the application was lodged before 15 September 2025, officers still considered the character contribution of the trees under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone schedule. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.46, 56) The schedule objective encouraged development that retains existing native vegetation, and officers described the two trees as very large, clearly visible from outside the site, and difficult to avoid because of their size, location, and notional root zone. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.55-56) The officer report accepted that the applicant’s Sustainable Design Assessment committed to minimum vegetation coverage of 35 percent of the site, but also stated that this would not immediately offset the loss of established trees. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.56)
The recommended permit conditions translated that vegetation issue into enforceable plan requirements. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.61-62) The amended-plan condition required the landscape plan to demonstrate 35 percent vegetation coverage, and the landscape-plan condition required a survey of existing vegetation, a planting schedule, canopy tree plantings, and species to the responsible authority’s satisfaction. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.61-62) The condition also required canopy trees to be located so that no canopy crosses the site boundaries. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.62)
Elmore Example: Clause 55 Now Quantifies Canopy Outcomes in Multi-Dwelling Assessment
The 27 Hervey Street, Elmore application proposed five dwellings on a 1,012 square metre Township Zone lot. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.68-70) The report states that the site had contained a large gum tree that was removed before the introduction of Clause 52.37. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80) Officers recorded that the tree removal would have triggered a requirement to obtain planning permission if Clause 52.37 had applied at the time. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.80-81)
The Elmore application also shows the related role of Clause 55.02-7, Standard B2-7, in measuring replacement or new canopy outcomes. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.86-87) Clause 55.02-7 required minimum canopy cover under Table B2-7.1, allowed retained existing trees to count toward canopy cover, and required at least one new or retained tree in both the front setback and rear setback. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.86) For the 1,012 square metre Hervey Street site, officers calculated a minimum canopy coverage requirement of 202.4 square metres. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.86) The submitted landscape plan showed 215.9 square metres of canopy cover, exceeding the required minimum by 13.5 square metres. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.86) The proposed tree types were Lemon Myrtle and Wilga Native Willow, identified in the report as Type A and Type B trees aligned with Table B2-7.2. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.86)
The practical mechanism is that Clause 52.37 controls removal of existing canopy trees, while Clause 55.02-7 can require quantifiable canopy cover in new townhouse and low-rise development. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.80-87) The Hervey Street report shows that meeting Clause 55.02-7 formed part of the deemed-to-comply pathway, and the officer report stated that where all applicable deemed-to-comply standards are met, objectors do not have VCAT review rights on those standards. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.76-78) This means canopy compliance can both shape the physical landscape outcome and affect the appeal pathway for multi-dwelling applications assessed under the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.76-78, 86-87)
Relationship to Housing Reforms and Deemed-to-Comply Assessment
The Elmore officer report links the changed Clause 55 assessment framework to the State Government’s Housing Statement and Amendment VC267. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.75-76) The report states that Amendment VC267 changed Clause 55 into the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code and introduced a deemed-to-comply pathway for townhouses and apartment buildings up to three storeys. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.76) The report states that all standards in the Code now have objective metrics and that, where a metric is met, no further assessment is required or can occur. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.76)
In this setting, canopy policy is not only an environmental consideration; it is embedded in an objective compliance pathway. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.76-78, 86-87) The Hervey Street application met Clause 55.02-7 because it exceeded the 202.4 square metre canopy requirement with 215.9 square metres of proposed canopy cover. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.86) The report then concluded that the relevant elements of the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code were met and that objectors did not have VCAT review rights. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80)
Planning Implications for Greater Bendigo
For post-15 September 2025 applications, Clause 52.37 may require a permit for canopy-tree removal in circumstances where no tree-control permit was previously required. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.46, 80-81) For applications lodged before 15 September 2025, the agenda indicates that transitional provisions can exempt the application from Clause 52.37. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46) For trees removed before Clause 52.37 commenced, the Hervey Street report shows that council may acknowledge the removal as lawful where no prior tree controls applied. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80)
The Marong and Elmore examples also show that canopy outcomes may still be pursued through landscape-plan conditions, ESD commitments, Clause 55 canopy metrics, and local character objectives. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.56, 61-62, 86-87) However, replacement planting is not equivalent to retention of mature trees in the short term, because the Marong officer report expressly states that 35 percent vegetation coverage would not immediately offset the loss of established trees. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.56)
Current Status
VC289 is in force as an approved statewide amendment because the agenda states that it was gazetted on 15 September 2025 and introduced Clause 52.37 into all Victorian planning schemes. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46; Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80) The Greater Bendigo agenda does not identify a local implementation amendment, local schedule, local policy translation, or council resolution specifically for VC289. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.45-90)
Dependencies
- Blocks: Clause 52.37 may block canopy-tree removal proceeding without a planning permit where the clause applies. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46)
- Blocked by: The available corpus does not identify any further approval needed for VC289, because the agenda records it as gazetted on 15 September 2025. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.46)
- Informed by: The available Greater Bendigo evidence is informed by statutory-planning assessments for 42 Torrens Street, Marong and 27 Hervey Street, Elmore. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.45-90)
- Implements: The available corpus does not include the VC289 explanatory report, ministerial reasons, instruction sheet, or gazette notice, so the higher-order policy instrument implemented by VC289 cannot be confirmed from the supplied source. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.45-90)
- Conflicts with: The available corpus shows a tension between mature-tree retention and site redevelopment where established trees have large root zones or where applications were lodged before VC289 commenced. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.46, 56, 80-81)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
VC289 applies across all Victorian planning schemes, so its canopy-tree permit trigger is not confined to Greater Bendigo. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.80) The Elmore application also sits near a municipal boundary, because the Campaspe River passes approximately 250 metres east of 27 Hervey Street and forms the border between Greater Bendigo and Campaspe. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, p.69) The available corpus does not show whether Campaspe Shire has parallel local implementation issues, post-VC289 permit examples, or canopy-tree removal disputes. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.68-90)
Gaps in This Analysis
The source base is thin for a statewide amendment because the manifest contains one council agenda rather than the VC289 amendment package. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.45-90) The missing primary documents are the VC289 instruction sheet, explanatory report, gazette notice, final Clause 52.37 text, any incorporated documents, and any Department of Transport and Planning guidance on how responsible authorities should apply the canopy-tree trigger. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.45-90) Without those documents, this page can identify commencement date, transitional operation, and local application examples, but it cannot fully analyse exemptions, decision guidelines, tree-size thresholds, mapped applicability, enforcement pathways, or the statewide policy rationale. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.45-90)
A related local gap is the absence of post-15 September 2025 Greater Bendigo applications where Clause 52.37 was directly applied to a canopy-tree removal permit. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.45-90) The two available examples are transitional or adjacent examples: the Marong application was lodged before VC289 and the Elmore tree was removed before Clause 52.37 commenced. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-Agenda-December-15-2025.pdf, pp.46, 80-81)