The Bundoora Park Golf Course is closed until further notice due to fire damage.
Published on 12 November 2026
In 2025, Council refused an application under its own Local Law to remove the trees at 148 Ballantyne Street, Thornbury. In 2025, the trees were assessed under Council’s Tree Protection on Private Property Local Law, where their ‘fair’ health at the time did not justify removal. It was noted at the time that if the trees remained in good health their anticipated life expectancy was likely to be in the order of 5 to 15 years.
On 15 September 2025, the Victorian State Government introduced Clause 52.37 (Canopy Trees) into the Victoria Planning Provisions. This moved tree removal requests from Council’s Local Law into the statutory planning system under specific circumstances and these two trees are captured by these new controls. The applications under these controls are processed as VicSmart applications, which are exempt from public notice and VCAT review. The property owner lodged the current application under this framework.
On 2 October 2026, Council received a planning permit application to remove the two Sugar Gum trees at 148 Ballantyne Street, Thornbury (application D/649/2026).
Council understands the community sentiment and appreciates the lengthy campaign concerned residents have run to ensure the ongoing health and future of the trees at 148 Ballantyne Street. Council does not take a decision of this nature lightly.
In recent months Council had arranged for an independent arboricultural assessment to be undertaken. This was prompted by a request for a review of the 2025 refusal for permission to grant the permit.
The September 2026 report found that the trees' health had changed and that the risk of branch failure had escalated from "moderate" to "high," causing an unacceptable safety risk to residents. This assessment was commissioned by Council to ensure there was high quality, specialist and independent assessment of this matter which we know is important for community. The assessment advises that options to effectively mitigate these risks are limited.
Decreased structural integrity: the additional powerline clearance pruning over time has progressively altered the tree structure. This has resulted in increased canopy asymmetry and structural imbalance, placing greater stress on the remaining branches.
Physical deterioration: Progressing stem cavities, further Cockatoo-related damage, canopy decline and evidence of historic branch failures have contributed to the deterioration of the tree.
Unfortunately, options to mitigate these risks are limited. Further pruning to manage the risk is not considered a viable long-term solution, as additional canopy removal would likely worsen the existing asymmetry and structural imbalance, potentially increasing the risk of failure elsewhere within the tree.
The full arboricultural assessment is available here(PDF, 4MB)