issue with redland city council

Eric Frei

Here's balance.

Any developer buying land to build knows he has 2 to 3 years before his investment yields.

He has to plan ahead, consider the costs of finance and future sales value.

He buys a property that has no VPO's and is OK to develop.

He commences clearing the property to have some council tosser arrive and tell him to stop.

"But why", he asks.

Well, "because a neighbour has rung and complained". Worse still the neighbour now insists on a VPO for a tree near his boundary.

The piss weak and useless at running a business council decides to appease the tree hugging resident.

The council orders the tree protected and that's it, stiff shit for the developer.

The developer then contacts me and wonders how the hell he is in this insane mess.

The developer needs 2 to 3 years of stability, something councils and their idiotic and often unqualified elected representatives do not understand.

So, the tree is large and now the developer realises that the original plans are useless, a redesign is necessary. To accommodate the tree 2 of the proposed 14 townhouse units are lost. He's down to 12 units so in effect the price has risen not 14% but some more due to delays and fees (banks care not for reason of delay, just the duration).

Is this system fair?

Clearly to the rational person, no.

To an idiot, yes.

And this is regular, it happens all the time. The fat cat behind the desk still goes home with the same pay ... but might ignorantly whine about the expensive prices of housing today.

__________________

Kenny Koala

Eric the biggest problem we have found isn't the councillors, even though they do very little in trying to help.

The big problems and without even asking i bet i could tell Justsomad one the said ladies name, is the bureaucrats.
Some are rude, arrogant and think they are above the very people that pay their wages.
One germ in the redlands needs an attitude adjustment done with something rather large and heavy.

These clowns that run the state took power away from the councillors.
We can't vote out bureaucrats but we can vote out councillors.
The councillors should be the ones that wield the power not the bureaucrats.

That way if they perform like this council has we can remove them at the next election

Eric Frei

Worry not, I have my boot well entrenched in a particular bureaucrats ass, and he knows it.

Dumb as dog shit the bulk of them.

__________________

Kenny Koala

Hey that's being a bit harsh
















Towards dog shit

Eric Frei

I know, poor dogs .... little do they know about their owners though.

__________________

Justsomad

Hey kenny - thank you so much for your advice, I just saw the Ormiston meeting in the local paper - will speak to the other half and try to get there.

We're very close to a final inspection on a recent extension, so want to get that finalised before we shake any trees (so to speak) - extension BTW which had to be halved and totally redesigned (at our additional cost of course) because 1 branch on said neighbouring tree could not be touched. The council tree 'lady's' exact words (on inspecting the tree) where:

First sentence: 'you can't touch that tree it'll never come down' (in itself a entirely stupid comment - wonder why they call them widow makers?) but then 2 minutes later she says ' oh no - you can't build under it - it's too dangerous' - what the?

So for just a little bit longer we have to be careful - then once we have all our paperwork in order - the 'other half' will begin our campaign - I've sent your advice home to him, so thanks again.....cheers J-S-M

PS.. their arborist (very new to the area at the time) did visit the owner of the tree (who called my husband to attend meeting - she's a widow) - he was less than impressive and spent his time photographing our extension being built. We've been promised a copy of his report + another arborist report from Nov 2010 - nothing received to date - but like I said, we have to be just a bit more patient - and hope the wind doesn't blow - I was very concerned last Saturday and although a lot of light stuff fell - thank god nothing big!

Justsomad

Hey Kenny,

I'm new to this world of on-line chatting (thought I'd responded to you this morning but it doesn't appear to be showing - maybe I did something wrong).

Anyway - just wanted to say thanks for your advice (I've sent it home for info of the hubby) - he'll be leading our - campaign for sanity - once it gets underway (we're just finalising some things where we can't be shaking any trees just now - if you get my drift).

I also had a read of the Shoalhaven case, it's just mind-blowing - the poor guy is still dead!!! I think I'd have done more than just grab the guys shirt!

Lots of good info in your post - I believe even with our Arborists report (which will cost about $1,000) the Council can still just ignore the report (which they made clear BTW ' get your report but we don't have to abide by anything said in it' - which is a bit of a worry, you'd do it in a flash if it was going to be up-held but why spend this sort of $$ just for the Council to flush it!

We'll also attend one of action group meetings, but probably not the one tonight - we've been keeping records of visits and conversations and once we have everything in order and documented (and any other pending interaction is complete) we'll try once more to do this via official channels (we have had interaction with 1 senior Council public servant who appears reasonable) and if that fails the gloves will come off and stand back - because my other half and I both take BIG steps

Cheers....J-S-M

Kenny Koala

Hi Justsomad

Send them an email asking for the said branchs removal.
If they say no they are then legally responible for any damage and injury.
Make sure they reply by email or letter. If they do it by phone tell them you want it in writing or you will remove the branch

Stop talking to them and either do it by email or written letter.

That way they can't deny anything.
They're a little liberal with the truth when it suits them and they even stretch the truth and deny councillors of all the information

If you've kept a history of all conversations, you have the said council officer over a barrell as she has said it's to dangerous to build under.
She has admitted such and the limb should be removed
If anything happens make sure you own her house when you're finished.

This is how ridiculous this council has become when building applications are being stuffed around by a bunch of nuftiy nazis in the enviroment planning department

Justsomad

Yep - agree totally, we get everything in writing (it's how we got our $1K refund we had our facts and the incompetance could not be denied).

As angry as we get - we still want (via non confrontational means) a final outcome that is good (& safe) for us, as we're really the only house that will likely be damaged given prevailing winds; good for the poor women (widow) who owns the tree and good for the tree itself (I'm sure the health of the tree will benefit with all the dead wood and weird right angled branches removed).

I also believe in the Toothfairy and Father Xmas!

I'll let you know how it goes......

Eric Frei

In a report I wrote about a 20m lemon scented gum, check this out.

When I inspected the tree it was about 40% foliated, inundated with large deadwood because it was near a sewer main. The sewer was blocked so 6 months prior the plumber excavated 1/2m away from the tree and 2m deep ripping up large (300mm dia) roots etc. The tree had a lean toward the rear neighbours house, which was within striking distance .... so all supporting tensile roots opposite the lean were severed.

My report said the tree had to go, it also had a termites nest at the base.

Upon cutting it down it was hollow. Fact is the excavation across one side effectively killed 50% of it's roots and cut all tensile supporting roots.

In a copy of an email I obtained via RTI on another matter a council officer said this to discredit me:-

To consider retention of the tree would be blatant incompetence.

Here's a pic of the sparse canopy and deadwood.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Kenny Koala

Well down here at the southern end of Redland bay we will be finding out which councillors care about the people and upholding councils own bylaws or which ones are just to green to see the forrest because of the trees.

A submission has been put to council that would remove TPA31.
The council officers have to make up a report and the councillors will vote on it.

The funny thing.
We couldn't careless if TPA31 stays. We just want council to to apply their own laws correctly when it comes to permitted damage within 10 metres of a house

Kenny Koala

Common sense has prevailed.

One of the officers was asked to put a report together on how TPA 31 works with Local law 6 as well as a report on removing TPA31.

The meeting was this morning and AprilJ and Myself put a statement together that i read out to the councillors, tearing holes in the argument from the officer.
The games from the officers were being played right up to the last minute.
The agenda for the meeting wasn't publicly released till around 5:30pm last night.
The report was bordering on being a false statement.
We gave our statement high ligthing the errors in the report and stating that exemptions did apply.

Council voted 8-1 to keep TPA31 and also voted to have all the exemptions applicable under local law 6 applied to the TPA.

This now takes it back to the way it was before 2 new council officers were appointed.

Fortunately all the councillors knew the exemptions were always there and voted accordingly

AprilJ did all the hard work and research using councils own records and spent hours down at the library going through old papers.
Fortunately we also have a neighbour that once owned this block that kept all the council letters that had worksheets attached that showed you what you couldn't remove

This has been a win, not just for us, but for the people of the Redlands

Eric Frei

I'd like to know the names of the two officers recently hired who tainted the water.

PM me if you like.

A distressing state of affairs when people make up the rules as they go along, and I know a lot of twisters in this business.

I have said before and I'll say it again. People often pursue their motives through their work. For example a conservationist becomes an ecologist, then gets a job in council, then lobbies and uses their influence and power to prevent development. Another example is a tree hugger pursues arboriculture at the consulting level, gets a job in council and does their damnedest to stop trees being cut down even if that means twisting the law and facts.

Those officers should be sacked now.

__________________

Kenny Koala

A conservationist is somebody that likes to look after the enviroment through sound enviromental practices and will plant trees and the like in their own backyard and doesn't force their ideals on others

A Greenie is somebody who likes to look after the enviroment through sound enviromental practices and wants trees planted and retained in somebodies elses backyard and they will use their position, power or mob mentality to enforce their ideals on others, regardless of outcomes

Greenie rent-a-crowds should be shot

Darrell Mcleod

Publish them here!!

George Valentine

I have been saying that for years, and in my view, they are more powerful today than they ever been before, why...??? because the head-honkers employing them at councils and government departments, do it deliberatley to accommodate their own ideals, protect their own positions and look good in the eyes of who they want to impress.

These " false arborists" are true rats and poisonous, which I can smell them miles away...! I've seen a few too damn many, lately...!

After all, if it smells like a rat, looks and crawls like them and has a rat's coat, sure it gotta be a bloody rat, huh...???

Cheers
George

Kenny Koala

Like most of us on here. We love our trees, but unfortunately some of these people take it way to far.

Practice what you preach for starters.
Don't force someone to have massive trees next to there bedroom wnidow when you don't have any yourself.
Don't live on a 600sqm block and expect others to carry the burden of supplying green space and trees and the new buzzword amenity.

All councils need to clean up their act when it comes to tree laws.
People shouldn't have to argue their rights, wade through near 20 year old papers and council records to prove their case.
A simplifiction of all laws in needed and the availablity of planting new trees in proper corridors to replace trees that have been removed should be thoroughly investigated

Bureaucrats have turned tree laws into a complete mess. It's time to make them easy for all to understand

Eric Frei

Council considers tree protection law - Local News - News - General - Bayside Bulletin / The Redland Times

__________________

Kenny Koala

That was the meeting i spoke at.

Judith Kerr the author of the article lives around the corner and said she would doing another article on it.

We had spoken with the Mayor Melva Hobson, Mayoral candidate and councillor Karen Williams, Division 6 councillor Toni Bowler, Councillor Helen Murray, councillor Wendy Boglary and Barbara Townsend on different occassions about the exemptions and how they were being interpretated.
We made an official complaint about Barbara Townsend to prove a point.
She has a murraya Paniculta hedge and had been trimming it without permit.
Sadly a Murraya fits the definition of a tree in the Redlands.
We were never going to take it further, it was only highlighting how bad the tree laws were.
After they saw AprilJ's research and Old Love next doors factsheets they were quickly starting to agree with us.
After the meeting Karen Williams, Toni Bowler and Helen Murray all basically said the same thing. That the exemptions were always in place and thats how it should be read and that they weren't going to be copping any of that rubbish.
The bureaucrats had their arses handed to them on a platter.

Thats what happens when you shift the goalposts without going through all the right channels.
The bureaucrats were trying to change the rules without re-writing them and going through the process of making and publishing new declarations