issue with redland city council

jdbr

Hi all, I'm from redland in Queensland and have been having some issues with the council regarding tree removal.

I purchased the property just around seven months ago. Back in Feb the neighbour demolished his house to develop units, the plans ect were all OK'ed by the council and he was very close to start. There is one large gum tree 11m from my house and 1m in from the fence on my side. He is putting is a driveway right up to the fence and the building will be well within the 10m of the fence. He would like it removed.

There is also another large gum tree out the front that I had already planned to remove. The tree trunk branches off in to two (sorry dont know the correct term) and grows at an acute angle over the house. It is about 1m from the car port and about 5m from the front of the house, and it also has a lot of branches coming into contact with power/phone wires to the house.

I called RCC about the two trees, and was told that there were no VPO on any of the trees on my block, 6 in total from memory, the tree at the front I could remove any time as it was within 10m of my home. The other tree since it was out side 10m would have to have a permit for. The bloke from the council gave me a "CRID"? number and a list of things I needed for the application.

I decided to remove the tree on the fence line as it was close to where the neigbour was building and did not want future issues with them or the body corp of the units with damage or ongoing cost.

I had an arborist view the property and he said that the drive way the developers wanted was going to be an issue and recommended it be removed.
He would do the report and I would get the info required from the developers. sent him the info he required.

After four months of email and nagging this bloke to do the report he finally comes good and the application logded.

I phone up the RCC to check on the application and the council bloke (not he first one, he was on holidays) tells me that there has been an VPO on the two tree that I want to remove, obviously I was a bit mad. I asked him when and all he would tell me was in march (after my first call to coucil about the trees but before the application lodged) he would not give me any of the info about my first call which would be attached to the CRID number that I
was given, nor would he give me the name of the person who lodge the VPO. I find it a little suspicious that a VPO was put on the only two trees on the property that I wanted to remove moment after I inquired about it, even though there is one other large gum one small and large very widecanopy but not tall something or other.

Am I just being parinoid or do council people put VPOs on tree just to please themself, are people in the coucil allowed to do that, given they have "insider knowledge".

I was told on last week that I could appeal it when I get the letter about the VPO but I will not be back at home for 2 1/2 weeks due to work.

If the tree on the side has to stay and causes damage to the neigbours property who is responsible.

Am I not able to find out who it was that put the VPO on, as I feel it was someone who was in the council.

What should be my next cause of action.

Thanks for any help.

Eric Frei

Maybe your consultant tipped the council off?

Who was the consultant?

Nothing new about councils being dirty or changing the rules midstream.

If the tree is forced to stay then the RCC is responsible to ensure the adjacent development does not have detrimental impact upon the tree, use that terminology to get some action. The neighbouring development should supply a report for such. Be interesting to see who writes that one too.

__________________

Garry Brockley

These cases are becoming more common obviously rcc havent heard of the internet and think that noone will see whats going on.......

__________________

jdbr

Thanks for the reply so quick.
Iam suprised that the developers were given the go ahead without a decision on the tree having been made.
Also very annoyed that I did the right thing and got screwed.

I remember that the council person I spoke to the first two times tried hard to convince me to only trim the trees, and I gave reason why I did not want to do that,and the reasons the arborist gave me. I also told him that these are the only two on the block that would be removed and all the others would be staying.

why would the consultant tip off the council after he had agreed to do the job, why wouldn't he just tell me that he thinks the trees should stay. Is him making things more difficult for me worth more money to him?
not willing to name names, sorry.

Has anyone hard anything to do with these "CRID" numbers, am I entitled to get the info off them?

I am not sure if the neighbours have had a report done on the tree, I think they may have been leaving it up to me as it is no my side of the fence.

I would have liked to get legal advise, but I'm note exactly flush with cash.
Thanks again.

Eric Frei

If the report was poorly written or offered little viable options to removal that would also have an impact. Councils can override a report's recommendations.

Without seeing the report I cant help though.

Councils have to abide by the Freedom of Information Act and RCC should supply information under it, they call it Right to Information.

RCC usually do get trees reported on within 5m or even 10m of boundary fences, not sure if it happened on that site but if the tree has to stay then it has to happen and perhaps driveway construction altered to accommodate tree roots.

I have had plenty of dealings with RCC and some of the consultants that work the area, some (both consultants and council officers) make me raise an eyebrow that's for sure.

Some interesting threads:-

Koala Craziness as Govt approve relocating them for development

concreting in TPZ fences prior to clearing - true!

Would you like this dead silkyoak infront of your house?

__________________

AprilJ

Hi, I also live in the Redlands and have problems with the council in regards to trees. We have old TPO's that date back 15 years as does alot of the Redlands. I have been trying to get copies of the actual order and the law under which it was written so as it can be interpreted, for legal reasons. All this is now dealt with under Local Law 6. LL6 also states that all protected vegetation must be entered into the Vegetation Protection Register, and that this register must list when the order was made, when it came into force, particulars of land and the location of the prot. veg., particulars of the prot. veg., the grounds on which the order relates and how the grounds relates to the local law also details of any permit issued by local govt in respect of the vegetation. With the Register must be any management policies for it.
This register under Local Law 6 is suppose to be available for public inspection at council office, however good luck, was there yesterday and they can not find it, spoke to Ken "the Arborist" today, he does not even know what it is. This will list exact dates, the expert reports etc about the Order also have you tried the council minutes, they are also on the net. Have appointment tomorrow to view it. We'll see.

jdbr

I have been dealing with Ken for the last couple weeks, since the person I was origanally dealing with has been away, and he is the most unhelpfull person I have come across in awhile, in fact getting a straight answer out of amyone I have dealt with is near impossible.

I have spoken to another arbborist regarding the 3 months it took for the abborist to do the report, and he has suggested some things.

I haven't given up on this yet and have some time off work so I will be able to put in some time to getting it resolved.

I hope you can get your issues sorted out.

AprilJ

Ken has told me that not only are the trees on the TPO covered any "vegetation" that has been planted since, including trees, shrubs etc is also covered, under this law I am not even allowed to law the lawn without a permit.

AprilJ

Sorry, Mow the lawn. (Not that I do)

AprilJ

Went to RCC, their Vegetation Protection Register (as per the law LL6 No. 23) consists solely of TPO31, my case, for any information I was told I would need to apply under Freedom of Information although the LL6 clearly states in No 23.4 the records are open to the public.
Tell RCC they are confused because the VPG only contains TPO31, and this does not cover your tree. Unless your issue is also TPO31.

Eric Frei

What is TPO31?

__________________

AprilJ

The TPO31 was a Tree Protection Order placed over large areas of Redland Bay in 1994, at the time the area was owned by 106 people, it was to "allow for the retention of vegetation along the creeks and along the bay frontage improving water quality and maintaining the visual aesthetics of the area." The 100+ acres around the corner from us has about 15 trees. It accounted for 1 block. Large lots of this have since been developed. It came out of a 1991 order placed over Victoria Point, Mt Cotton and other areas of Redland Bay, which was revoked. The creeks mentioned are many klms away and we are 5 rows of houses or 3 streets, back from the bay frontage.

Kenny Koala

If you follow the RCC's rules to a tee you wouldn't even be able to cut your grass.

They have forgotten who pays their wages

Eric Frei

Tree chop law stumps Redland Bay resident - Local News - News - General - Bayside Bulletin / The Redland Times

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Kenny Koala

It just gets better Eric.

Under Australian law everyone has a right to establish a fenceline.

The RCC with there TPA31 and how it over rides Local law 6 sub section 27 b permitted damage takes away this basic right.

These tree Nazis give all the hard working council employees a bad name

Eric Frei

I have always maintained that balance has to take place.

People of either polar extreme will be a problem.

Sadly people like that get 1oz of power and apply it, small penis syndrome.

I have caught a few out in my day, common denominator is they are one eyed and gravitate their thinking to their biases, they cannot see that themselves but others can. Frankly, they need therapy and a job without power.

Amicable and balanced solutions can be found, if looked for.

__________________

Kenny Koala

There's certainly a few with small penis and even one with small man syndrome. Unfortunately even his conduct with April has been inapropriate and the council swept it under the carpet

Now that they have confirmed they have been interpreting local law 6 in-correctly for the last 13 years it just doesn't affect us, it affects every part of redland city that has a Tree protetction area over it.
From what i understand there are quite a few TPAs in the Redlands. So it potentialy affects thousands of homes.

If those seat polishers think we're going to go away they are very badly mistaken.
We have council elections next march and a call to TV stations wouldn't go astray.

We have other options that we are following up but in case one of the nazis has a look here i won't elaborate on

I'm going to make this an election issue and i hope the new coucillors kick some heads in when elected.

Eric Frei

I did an RTI (Right to Information) and in that I got a copy of a seat polisher slagging me off to his superior in an email.

Flat out BS written.

So I lodge a complaint to RCC, and after months of buck passing incompetence they say case resolved as they could not resolve it.

That's right, the very thing they set out to achieve to solve the complaint could not be determined by them, or by their consultant, or by the CMC or the Ombudsman. But with that in mind, they say case resolved, all done.

What a privilege to be able to write trash about people and get away with it. No respect for that council protecting it's grubs, needs to be a big broom put through there.

__________________

Kenny Koala

Redland city council would have to be the most incompetent council in Australia.
Some of the TPA's (Tree Protetction Areas) when passed by council weren't put in the public notice section of the papers which is a requirement by law for around 12 months. It even took council 2 months to find the TPA for this area.

It gets better the RCC are using the TPA's as a blanket tree protection order.

April has been digging and found a letter from the the then shire clerk to the home owners of the time stating that 10 mtr from a dwelling and 3 mtr from a fence line were applicable and that the TPA's were never intended to be a blanket coverage.
Yet this aborist that i'm sure is a text book aborist and never put a chain saw to a tree in his life still thinks otherwise. This goose was the weed control officer at the Whingarry shire and after doing some research found absolutely nothing about his supposed aborists skills. His mate that agrees with him started the job around the same time in may. A couple of blow-ins that don't know the past history of the area and unfortunately these seat polishers now have the say.

Anyway we've had a bit of a win as we had the local councilor and the aborists boss asses the tree and they have decided to let us remove it, but not under the exemptions but under their discrection.
which still leaves us with a paperbark and ironbark that are visably compromised by termites and another tree that i'm not sure what it is.

RCC's record keeping is a joke. This is heading to court and any magistrate that is remotely interested in correct procedure will throw the book at the RCC.

It's past a joke when home owners have to resort to this

Eric Frei

I'd really like to go out and see these trees and take some pics. You can PM me if you like, I wont charge or anything just want to have a look.

I wonder if these seat polishers are QAA chums?

Lots of one eyed incompetent members there.

Did you know we are starting a new Arborist Association? It's called Australian Tree Association Ltd, a new national body with balanced people running it.

The most recent Constitution for it is in this post. We will be working for our members and will need sponsors, it's time for a change as the existing cronyism has been allowed to fester way too long.

__________________

Janal

Hello, boy am I glad I stumbled across this thread!
I too have issues with RCC and trees, we have a park beside us and we have communicated many times with council over the years. Our house and pool were in place long before council came out and planted gum trees in the park. Now we have to put up with leaves, bark and sap ruining out gutters and pool. One tree is only about 4 meters from our fence line. We are aging as we all are but hubby has reached the point now where he can no longer physically keep the gutters clean. He has developed a Abdominal Aortic Aneurism and is supposed to keep his stress levels down.
Not only have our letters met with refusals from council but they came out and planted another 6 gum trees around the one giving us the most grief, Well as you can imagine it is a very stressful situation and now we have to look at moving because of all this. The planting of more gums in such a small area is nothing short of bulling.
We also contacted the ombudsman but he just said he couldn't do anything as RCC hadn't done anything unlawful.
Where is the justice and what right do they have to make life so miserable for others.

AprilJ

Hi,
Sorry to hear about issues with RCC. For a Council that wins green awards, truly they are nothing but front. Try the free Community Legal Service at Capalaba, as the trees may be considered "nuisance" trees under the Neighbourhood Dispute Resolution Bill, when it comes in. Also try contacting Councillor Karen Williams, so far the only person who looks at any complaint with a bit of common sense. There is also the Anti Redlands Council group, Concerned Redlands Residents Assoc, you will get told they are a front for developers, Karen Williams and anything else people can think of, but a Council will only listen if you have numbers. I know since taking up this issue how many people are unable to get solar or have other "tree" problems, often with Council trees. We need 10 councillors with common sense. Hopefully next election we may get a couple.
April

Kenny Koala

Certainly sounds like you're being bullied.

Is it any wonder people take matters into their own hands and poison trees.


These seat polishers had better start worrying about their jobs because i'm now hellbent on making it an election issue.

Bureaucrats with to much power and to top it off some are rude and arrogant pigs.
One slag even had the hide to tell me i have no rights on my own property

Good luck with you fight Janal and do what AprilJ said as well as presssuirng your local councillor

Give the Bayside Bulletin a call as well. the more people that know about this council the better

Eric Frei

Committee votes to cut tree protection orders - Local News - News - General - Bayside Bulletin / The Redland Times

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Kenny Koala

Good to see some common sense finally prevailing in the Redlands.
Although it doesn't go far enough, hopefully things like this will continue and some a balance found

Must be an election coming up

Still doesn't help Janal though.

Justsomad

First ever post but as my name suggests I'm just so mad!

We have a 100' gum tree 30' from our bed - it is in a neighbours yard who is happy for the tree to be maintained (i.e. cutting down dead and nearly dead branches - not - I repeat not totally cutting it down - we actually really love the tree!!) - however a another neighbour, we both share (unfortunately) has requested a VPO on this tree (not in their yard and not likely to fall in their yard) and now to touch a leaf it will cost god knows how much! We've been threatened with thousands of $$ fine if a leaf is touched!

A koala visited twice 4 years ago - not seen since - there are many other gums around and it's not a food tree AND we don't want to cut it down - just give it a sensible hair-cut. Arborists have seen (at our cost) and agreed with what we want to do, but once Council got involved it's all gone to hell in a handbasket!

I'm (or at least I was at the start of this 18month ordeal) a sane, sensible law abiding rate-payer who wants to follow the rules - however, at this point, if a large branch lands on my grand-daughter or damages person/s or property in any way - I will be personally suing a couple of those women (for want of a less polite word) in the council tree section (not the council, them personally!!) My husband and I have spoken to our local Councillor (as helpful as an ashtray/motorbike) gone to snr m'ment in the Council with moderate success on another issue (managed a $1000 refund due to their incompetance on another issue) - but without it costing us a fortune not sure what to do next - when the time is right Channel 7 perhaps? Tell me who to vote for at the next election and I'll happily do so - just so mad!

Eric Frei

Funny how the modern day tree hugger is so concerned with what is out of his yard and in others, too often we see VPO's on properties brought on by extremist from another.

Tree huggers are psychologically damaged, as are their law makers.

I do what I can to help, but human rationale and logic is beyond my repertoire to correct.... I often assess the bias and decide that I either debate it or walk away because arguing with an idiot only reduces you to their level.

__________________

Kenny Koala

Justsomad the council will have to advertise the VPO in the local paper first.
They like the Bayside Bulletin. So keep an eye on it as well as the Redland Times.
They will have to have their arborist inspect the tree as their expert opinion.
He's about as friendly as a fart in an elevator.
You then have 14 days to object to the VPO.
You said you've already had an aborist look at it so get his report and lodge it with your objection.

If council still goes ahead with the VPO they then take full responsibilty of any damage or injury that tree could cause seeing they won't do anything to it.
They have a duty of care to you.
Timms V Shoalhaven is all you need and there's even more if you care to look.
I know your pain when dealing with these arrogant seat polishers that this council is full of.
One slag told me i had no rights on my own property. She forgets commonwealth law over rides state and local government

Your other option is the neighbourhood disputes resolution bill and applying to QCAT for a result.
Unfortunately the bill doesn't cover protected vegetation but if you feel they aren't looking after the general publics safety you could still have a go.

Who is your local councillor.
We went to the Concerned Redland Ratepayers Assocation (CRRA) meeting a couple of weeks ago and there is a growing discontent with this present council.

They have a council conversations meeting tomorrow night at Ormiston.
We'll be there, ramming their own laws down their throats

Ring Karen Williams she's about the only one with any common sense out of the lot of them

CRRA will be holding some more meetings. You should go along and see what others think of this council

Eric Frei

Blind leading the blind in that council, green eyes only get anywhere.

Sack them all.

__________________

Kenny Koala

A resident who has trees on their own block across the street did not nominate their own block and just chose these trees.

The above was taken from the Bayside Bulletin article Eric posted.

There have been quite a few VPO's advertised in this part of the Redlands.
This individual is hiding behind councils own rubbish laws.

His or her's name should be on the VPO advert.

In the adverts they have 'Activation of Application' in this circumstance they put 'Community'. It should contain the name and address of the person making the application not community.

So one member of the community applies for the VPO on another persons property, but this piece of excrement who has trees on his or her own property won't put a VPO on his property.

Loonies like this give all responsible enviromentalists a very bad name

Like Justsomad we love our trees.
We don't won't to remove them all.
We just want some balance