Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan

Eric Frei · 15th February 2010, 03:45 PM

Anyone been keeping an eye on this?

A novel approach by the Newcastle City Council is they are prepped to have a panel of "experts" and budgeted $70K to hash something out.

Here's the latest news article:-

Community rallies to save Cooks Hill fig trees in Laman Street Newcastle

Yes, I made a comment under the pen name www.treeworld.info

Quote:

Ground penetrating radar is not very precise or accurate, it also cannot determine the integrity of the wood. There's thermal imaging cameras that can help as you can see the vascular flow and similar to an MRI machine get an indication of dysfunctional areas including decay and hollows. Perhaps some light excavation of the surface to trace buttress roots but not damage or undermine them would allow a variety of measuring techniques including thermal imaging, resistograph and core samples. Fungal pathogens can be mitigated using a non toxic biological agent, trichoderma, an in turn the trees can have some defense to decay. Strategic pruning of canopies for form and weight reduction in conjunction with fall arrest dynamic cables can mitigate the dropping branch concern. You realise that in the end the treatment is about the same, in New Farm Park in Brisbane trees fell like dominoes for 18 months after spending $90K on diagnostic investigation, at the end of the day after that investigation the treatment is pretty much the same as if the investigation never happened ... to tree people it's common sense. Gathering data is OK for reference and to find higher risk trees.

Drouin Tree Service · 15th February 2010, 05:28 PM

Wish i was on the panel!!!

Eric Frei · 18th September 2010, 11:09 AM

Looks like the trees are going, there was a lot of protest on this one.

Anyway what is interesting is that replacements are going to be a little more refined.

Newcastle street to get specially designed trees - ABC Newcastle NSW - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Quote:

Newcastle Council says it has commissioned an advanced tree nursery to grow eight specially designed hills figs to ensure they are a long-term solution for Laman Street.

Starting next Tuesday, it will take just three weeks for the street's iconic figs to be cut down, starting with the trees' canopy.

Work has already begun designing the new look Laman Street and it is hoped the plans will go before the council in December.

The city's arborist, Lindsay Field, says the new trees will be planted six metres apart down the centre of the street.

"We've engaged an advanced tree nursery to grow us single-stemmed hills figs which is not the normal form of those trees," Field said.

"What that does is, through the process of growing, removes the faults above ground and also develops us a very well structured and solid root system so that when the trees go into the large vaults they've got the best chance to kick-off."

Eric Frei · 25th September 2010, 06:42 PM

All the details are here

Newcastle City Council-Key documents

The key reports in order as follows.

Marsden report http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/__da...sden_final.pdf

Simonsen report http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/__da...amanStFigs.pdf

Swain report http://www.ncc.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass...rt__090310.pdf

There is conflict though in the QTRA camp.

Tree risk assessments| 15methods compared

Arborist questions fig tree safety risk - Local News - News - General - Newcastle Herald

Quote:

25 Sep, 2010

A second independent arborist has joined calls for Newcastle City Council to review information on which it based a decision to cut down Laman Street’s fig boulevard.

But the council said it remained confident in its advice, which came from several sources and all concluded the trees posed a significant safety risk.

Sean Freeman, a consulting arborist to local government in south-east Queensland and northern NSW, has taken an interest in the case following community outcry.

Campaigners fighting to keep the 14 Hills figs on the Cooks Hill street have questioned the council’s information and methods for determining that the trees are failing and pose a public safety risk.

Independent arborists were consulted as part of the council’s decision.

Protesters also enlisted professional advice, and have highlighted the opinion of arborist Mark ???????, who said incorrect assumptions had been made about the figs.

Mr Freeman said on Wednesday he supported Mr Hart ley’s view after reviewing case information.

His opinion was also based on a visit to Laman Street last year.

‘‘My time in [Laman] street didn’t leave me with an impression that the trees were an enormous risk ... to public safety,’’ Mr Freeman said.

A council spokeswoman said that over the past few years the council had commissioned several reports from respected independent arborists regarding the condition of the figs in Laman Street.

‘‘All of the reports came to the same conclusion: that the trees pose a significant risk,’’ she said.

The spokeswoman said the council’s arborists agreed with the findings.

‘‘Council is confident that the advice it has received regarding the figs is sound,’’ she said.

The council was to begin felling the figs this week but work was halted amid community-initiated court proceedings.

Eric Frei · 7th October 2010, 10:53 PM

Ground penetrating radar report attached as pics ... there's one more will be in next post

Eric Frei · 7th October 2010, 10:53 PM

Last one attached

Eric Frei · 12th October 2010, 06:10 PM

Land and Environment court has now adjourned the hearing (after 3 days) to 18 October 2010. Seems the "movements" arborist failed to show up for court too.

Fig risks considered - Local News - News - General - Newcastle Herald

Quote:

09 Oct, 2010 04:00 AM
Newcastle City Council made substantial efforts to consider the heritage, social and environmental significance of the Laman Street figs before concluding the trees had to go becuse of safety risks, a court heard.

In a third day of a hearing before the NSW Land and Environment Court, the council's legal representatives outlined the arborists' reports and other assessment the council had undertaken.

Adrian Galasso, SC, told the hearing the reports, as well as the "extensive debate" among councillors before a majority of them resolved on August 17 to have the trees removed, showed the council had considered various options before deciding the trees needed to be removed.

He said independent arborists' reports had found the removal of all 14 trees was necessary. To remove some would expose those left to winds they were not used to and might not withstand, and would hasten their decline.

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement said the council should have sought development approval as the trees' removal was part of a Laman Street and Civic Park precinct project.

As a road authority, the council said it could remove or lop any tree overhanging a public road if it posed a traffic hazard.

The movement in turn argued the council had to establish that all of the trees posed a traffic hazard if it was to rely on powers as a roads authority.

The court heard an arborist was unable to appear as an expert witness for the movement yesterday.

Justice Peter Biscoe criticised the movement's counsel for failing to ensure the witness was available earlier in the hearing.

But he decided against an application from the council that the witness's affidavit not be allowed on the grounds he could not be cross examined.

The matter was adjourned until October 18.

Garry Brockley · 12th October 2010, 09:34 PM

Thats strange that the key witness failed to show, maybe they considered thier reputation too precious to give evidence.
no matter what side your on at least give it your best shot don't just pull out and not have your say.

Personally i like the marsden report it hits on alot of very good points.

Eric Frei · 20th October 2010, 06:54 PM

Justice Peter Biscoe reserved his judgement yesterday.

Court hears of Laman Street figs bat threat - Local News - News - General - Newcastle Herald

Quote:

19 Oct, 2010
Two ecological experts were at odds when giving evidence to a court yesterday about whether the removal of fig trees from inner-Newcastle’s Laman Street would adversely affect protected or threatened fauna.

Both acknowledged to a hearing of the NSW Land and Environment Court that they had not carried out a survey of the figs for bats and flying foxes.

The ecological consultants appeared concurrently on the fourth day of a hearing about the Parks and Playgrounds Movement’s efforts to stop Newcastle City Council’s plans to remove the 14 figs.

The movement argued the council did not consider the environmental effects in its decision to remove the figs.

The court heard yesterday a third ecological consultant, Charles Williams, who appeared for the movement on another day of the hearing, had recently carried out a survey of the figs for roosting hollows.

Ecological consultant Andrew Smith said Mr Williams’s survey had identified only one hollow that was deep enough for bat maternity roosting, but it was low to the ground and susceptible to rats.

Dr Smith said any bats that used the trees would be non-threatened species, as others such as the threatened greater broad-nosed bat were larger.

Common urban bats would not be affected because of the loss of the small section of trees, as they tended to be highly mobile, Dr Smith said.

John Ayling, SC, on the movement’s legal team, said Dr Smith had made broad statements.

Bat specialist Glenn Hoye said Dr Smith’s conclusion was questionable as ‘‘we really have a poor understanding’’ of bats’ use of urban trees.

Mr Hoye said grey-headed flying foxes, a threatened species, in Blackbutt Reserve, may use the trees as a food source.

Mr Hoye said he had not surveyed the figs when asked by the council’s Adrian Galasso, SC, whether his role had been to ‘‘criticise the work of others’’.

Justice Peter Biscoe reserved his judgment yesterday.

The Heritage order thing is also being tried.

Last-ditch rescue effort for city trees - Local News - News - General - Newcastle Herald

Quote:

19 Oct, 2010
A heritage group is seeking a state emergency order to halt chainsaws hovering over figs in Laman Street.

The National Trust Hunter regional committee is awaiting news of its request, which was lodged before separate court action over the Cooks Hill boulevard.

A 40-day emergency order can be granted under section 136 of the Heritage Act to halt work if a building, work, relic or place is being or about to be harmed.

Committee chairman Keith Parsons said the order was necessary because Newcastle City Council decided to cut down 14 Hills figs without enough consideration for heritage.

‘‘A 40-day emergency order ... would allow council, and the community, some time to consider the heritage implications of the decision,’’ Mr Parsons said.

The committee lodged its claim with Planning Minister Tony Kelly on September 23 and again on October 15.

A Department of Planning spokesman said yesterday that the trees had been identified in an independent heritage survey as being of local significance only.

‘‘The issue is a local heritage matter under the responsibility of Newcastle City Council, not the NSW Government,’’ he said.

Action under section 136 of the Act was intended to provide additional time to determine the heritage significance of items.

But this had already been ascertained via an independent heritage survey, the spokesman said.

Other activists are planning a fund-raising movie night to continue the campaign to keep the Laman Street trees.

Save Our Figs is hosting a screening of The Tree at Greater Union Newcastle cinemas on October 26.

CaityR · 7th November 2010, 04:19 PM

I think you may be interested in a couple of points about this case. One small point is that the Herald, whose reporting on the court case was very good, made one small error in that it was not an arborist who 'failed' to turn up, it was a wildlife expert. On day one of the hearing the community had two arborists ready in court to give evidence and council, I believe, had Mr Marsden, however, the judge would not take evidence from any of them as his attitude was that the council, as the roads authority, had 'formed an opinion' about the risk (allegedly) posed by the trees and the court was not going to revisit that. My understanding is that it was not a 'merit' case.
The community were very confident that our arboricultural advice would stand up against council's.
Mr Marsden's report has many good things in it, primarily that the only thing he thinks is wrong with these trees are their roots; he had no issues with their vigour, said they had no significant problems with included bark and no evidence of disease. His only issue was their roots; he based his assertion about the absence of roots on trenching that was done several years earlier when documenting services in the lead-up to a proposed Art Gallery redevelopment. It interests the community that any concerns at that time about the stability of the trees based on this alleged absence of roots failed to lead to panic on council's part.
Mr Swain, for council, disagreed with his assertion about roots on at least one side of the street.
Presumably to prove to the community that the trees had no roots, a ground penetrating radar investigation was commissioned by council in December 2009. When this showed that most of the trees had an obvious radial root system, council failed to release it and the only reason it has seen the light of day is because the community acquired it via a Freedom Of Information request.
My understanding is that in sandy, well-drained soil like in Laman Street trees may well be relying on tap roots rather than or as well as superficial roots.
Something has certainly made the trees withstand the Pasha Bulker storm of 2007 and three storms with wind gusts of 100km/hour this year alone.
One of the major problems with council's handling of this issue is that it seems most if not all of council's arborists have been somehow under the impression that three trees failed in the street in the 2007 storm when this is simply not the case. Again via FOI the pictures that led council to conclude that three trees had to be felled after the storm in which people died and millions of dollars damage were done to the town and 1200 trees failed throughout the city (mainly eucalypts but also including one fig in another street, not Laman Street) revealed underwhelming damage and no root plate failures. These pictures can be viewed at http://s901.???????????.com/albums/a...aman%20Street/
At the $70000 charette (the supposed community consultation exercise) an arborist on behalf of council told the residents present that what looked like radial roots were just 'reflections of minerals in bitumen'.
Council valued these trees at $1million a year ago, but mid-year this year their revaluation, obviously using another method, showed they were only worth $68000.
To date council has spent $150 000 fighting to remove the trees without a DA: The Herald article: News Store
If MRI-like technology or a pull test could prove the safety or otherwise of these sturdy-looking trees which are highly valued by Newcastle, council should use it. Our rates at work.

CaityR · 7th November 2010, 04:28 PM

I'm not sure why the link to the pictures didn't work - here's a shortened version of it. Underwhelming storm damage 2007 in Laman Street pictures by craschke - ??????????? They're certainly interesting for a non-arborist.

Garry Brockley · 7th November 2010, 06:02 PM

the links didn't work because you broke the loading pics rule

Great info though thank you!!!

Eric Frei · 7th November 2010, 08:45 PM

So when is a decision out?

CaityR · 8th November 2010, 05:34 AM

We don't know but it's quite nice that it's taking a while to decide.

CaityR · 8th November 2010, 05:38 AM

Just in case my sarcasm didn't shine through the tree valuation figures, such a difference by the same authority served only to increase my cynicism about the whole exercise and seemed to be yet more spin.

Eric Frei · 8th November 2010, 08:41 AM

I know, there's long running threads about it here.

The variations are about as wild and believable as the QTRA numbers some "licensed" pedlar dishes out.

Monetary value| Tree Valuation Methods

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

You know we have this tool also?

Revised Burnley Method Tree Valuation Online Calculator

There's many methods, so which is right? Which is the best? Well that depends on the motive behind the valuation. See if a tree hugger wants to save a tree they'll go for the method that gives them the highest value.

I kid you not, many accuse me of talking crap but I tell you "tree huggers" and worse still "planet huggers" invent systems to maximise their agenda ...... In the UK councils (so there is now "LAW" and AUTHORITY" ) come up with a new formula that values the trees so high the insurance companies wont argue to cut them down. This all stems from Poms having insurance coverage for subsidence which we generally in Australia do not.

It's called "capital asset value for amenity trees (Cavat) UK" and that is also a link to a post about it with PDF's.

Just goes to show what a load of nonsense all of this is and how people can even invent a new system to satisfy their motives .... tread carefully.

One of the constraints for many fig trees in an urban environment is the prohibition of aerial roots becoming props for the tree's naturally sprawling architecture, but that is not so large a problem for the benjamina and hillii ssp as other species but needs to be considered. In addition those anchored aerial roots also supply resources to the tree and strategically closer to the leaves.... all minor factors that make a difference to integrity and vitality.

The tree below is a Ficus hillii, see the large props.

Eric Frei · 14th November 2010, 08:38 AM

From another thread about assessment methods:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

Here's a story where the passenger was killed by a failed tree that impaled her, condolences to her family.

I wonder what the QTRA numbers would have been, and if the weather variable factor was used? Use of the weather variable reduces the risk further.

Sure some will say 100mph winds is crazy and it could happen anywhere anytime. But the tree had no leaves as it was a deciduous tree, means a lot less sail. The breakage point from watching the video seems "suspicious". Also in the video they spoke of banked up cars and redirecting traffic so regardless of such storm conditions there was still people driving past.

Yorkshire woman killed as falling tree smashes into car (Video) - Yorkshire Post

CaityR · 14th November 2010, 02:20 PM

The community lost in the Land and Environment court. We have a few days to consider whether to appeal.

Remember, the court did not listen to evidence from arborists. Does this set a precedent for every other NSW council to call a tree that overhangs a street a traffic hazard? And does this override the environmental protection act?

The judgement is at Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc v Newcastle City Council [2010] NSWLEC 231 (11 November 2010) and just in case this link doesn't work here's a shortened version Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc v Newcastle City Council [2010] NSWLEC 231 (11 November 2010)

Eric Frei · 14th November 2010, 03:10 PM

I find this interesting. I also know that report is on the saveourfigs blog site.

Quote:

53. On or about 30 August 2010 the Council received correspondence from a member of the public enclosing a report titled “Arborist Report” prepared by Mr Mark Hartley. The report claimed that “substantial errors” were made in the reports of Mr Marsden, Mr Simonsen and Mr Swain, which council relied upon in making the decision to remove the Trees. The alleged errors included that there was no evidence that any trees were windthrown during the June 2007 storm and that the risk of harm should be calculated at 1/19,400 instead of 1/400.
54. On 1 September 2010 council’s General Manager sent a memo to councillors in response to the Lord Mayor’s request for information regarding the report by Mr Hartley. The memo stated:

“Mr Hartley’s report makes claims that appear to question the professionalism of the three consultants used by the Council. There are a number of concerns with the way Mr Hartley’s report has been written and the information he has used. It is appropriate that Mr Marsden, Mr Swain and Mr Simonsen are given the opportunity to respond in writing. These responses will be provided to Council when received.

Council staff and management are confident that the investigations have been very thorough and that the evidence used in reaching the decision on the Figs in Laman Street is sound.”

55. Mr Swain sent a response to council on 8 September 2010. In this response he made detailed observations about Mr Hartley’s report, discussed key areas of concern and outlined how errors had been made by Mr Hartley. He concluded that the report was “biased and erroneous in several key areas”. Council’s General Manager circulated this response to councillors. The covering memo stated that “Council management and staff reaffirm their view that the advice received by Mr Marsden, Mr Swain and Mr Simonsen is sound”.

It would be good to expand specifically on the errors made by Hartley, do you have anything about that?

Drouin Tree Service · 15th November 2010, 06:29 PM

Mr Hartley’s report, discussed key areas of concern and outlined how errors had been made by Mr Hartley. He concluded that the report was “biased and erroneous in several key areas”. Council’s General Manager circulated this response to councillors. The covering memo stated that “Council management and staff reaffirm their view that the advice received by Mr Marsden, Mr Swain and Mr Simonsen is sound”.

My oh my some people shouldn't be writing reports!

Jeff Darby · 15th November 2010, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_lopa

Mr Hartley’s report, discussed key areas of concern and outlined how errors had been made by Mr Hartley. He concluded that the report was “biased and erroneous in several key areas”. Council’s General Manager circulated this response to councillors. The covering memo stated that “Council management and staff reaffirm their view that the advice received by Mr Marsden, Mr Swain and Mr Simonsen is sound”.

My oh my some people shouldn't be writing reports!

I certainly would not like THAT on my brief...

CaityR · 15th November 2010, 10:54 PM

I'm a community member who believes the trees are safe so I'm hardly objective.

The trees still standing in the street withstood the Pasha Bulker storm. The winds then reached a speed of 124 km/hour. In spite of these trees surviving that and further storms since - at least three 100km/hour 'wind events' this year alone - at least three arborists for council asserted that the trees were unsafe and had only a short tmie to live.

I can only say that the community have been completely unswayed by council's opinions. Most members of the community feel completely safe there and go there to have their wedding and school formal photos taken regardless of QTRA ratings that differ wildly and are figures that are unconvincing to the average resident.

Mike Ellison, from QTRA, described one rating, of 1 in 19.8, not knowing what street we were talking about, as the equivalent of a 4500mm circumference tree leaning at an angle over a bench occupied by a blind deaf mute.

Isn't a tree with a rating like this a tree that could be pulled over with a rope? You should see these trees. The only one with a very low (outdated) SULE rating is a different species which is less attractive than the others and 'could be a problem if a neighbouring tree were removed' (or something similar).

Using subjective tree assessments and applying QTRA in ways that may not always accord with the user manual both seem like a problem to me. In this day and age, perhaps we need to be relying on auditable, repeatable, scientific methods to judge tree safety, not simply relying on a consultant's past experience and opinion, especially with a city's most beautiful street, in a heritage area, where not a single tree has previously failed. As you can see in the pictures uploaded above, there were no whole tree failures in Laman Street in 2007.

<Could I suggest you read about North Ryde Common where it wasn't until MRI technology was combined with VTA that council was able to save tens of trees condemned by an experienced arborist.

The Weekly Times Online>

The community here in Newcastle hold the arborists who helped us in very high regard and remain grateful for the opinions they offered and the critiques they supplied us with, and which we have passed on to council. I am particularly grateful to Mr Hartley.

I think this street has been a poisoned challice for any arborist who has touched it. The whole experience has been a poisoned one for Newcastle residents. Bye bye trust in local government.

Eric Frei · 16th November 2010, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaityR

The community here in Newcastle hold the arborists who helped us in very high regard and remain grateful for the opinions they offered and the critiques they supplied us with, and which we have passed on to council. I am particularly grateful to Mr Hartley.

You still have failed to answer the larger question, what were Hartley's errors?

In the court document it states:-

Quote:

55. Mr Swain sent a response to council on 8 September 2010. In this response he made detailed observations about Mr Hartley’s report, discussed key areas of concern and outlined how errors had been made by Mr Hartley. He concluded that the report was “biased and erroneous in several key areas”.

That is what we seek.

I also note that your opinion of this site was rather biased as the following shows.

An Arborist chatroom
By Caity Raschke

I have uploaded the PDF of that blog post too, so we have a record.

Clearly you support only one side of a story, and do not take a balanced view of affairs. There are people who suffer greatly from trees and councils, this one had their land devalued by $437,500 due to a protected fig tree .... and the Chinderah Tavern tree fiasco shows other typical problems which can arise.

typical problems

I would rather listen to balanced opinion than one eyed biased views. The use of further technology is not infallible, New Farm Park was proof of that.

At the end of the day the movement lost, based on information presented. The council had the decency (unlike council's up here) to get a response to Hartley's “biased and erroneous in several key areas” report (before going to court), and that response clearly reinforced council's decision, seems all pretty reasonable to me.

Apocalypsse · 16th November 2010, 06:37 AM

HAHahahahahahaha, I'm the first person quoted in that blog.

CaityR · 16th November 2010, 06:56 AM

My answer to your question is I don't believe Mr Hartley made errors. I believe his advice regarding the use of QTRA was correct.

What would make you say council's arborists were unbiased?

Eric Frei · 16th November 2010, 08:45 AM

Well, didn't know this was about belief systems, I prefer facts.

So why don't you do a RTI on that email or ask Swain or council for a copy etc? Hartley's report received critique, lets read that, after all you had no trouble publishing Hartley's critique of others.

I must admit the report lost credibility for me once he commenced his "absurd" and "ridiculous" emotions, absolutely no need for that type of banter.

There was a lot of good investigation in those other reports, cutting sections of road to locate roots was great IMHO and far more credible than any QTRA mumbo jumbo which I have consistently frowned upon.

Jeff Darby · 16th November 2010, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypsse

HAHahahahahahaha, I'm the first person quoted in that blog.

At least your comments were published my response never saw the light of day! Why ? maybe because it was not the type of response they were looking for ?

Quote:

Good Evening to All

I listen to all the old wousers all the time, they want to control this industry and mind you have a good hold, however they do not want to give any information or advice for free, unlike the administrator at Treeworld....yes, Treeworld tackles all the hard subjects that most run from ! and others throw into the too hard basket.

Because of this Treeworld suffers from a lot of ridicule from those who want to control, and those who try and derail good threads with information that have no scientific evidence at all, but present as fact! And while we are on the subject of facts...fact is arborist use chainsaws, yes we use big scary ones ones and little cute ones that would cut you in half quick smart.

However the fact we use chainsaws does not mean we are out to madly cut down all trees we see, as most seem to think, We use our chainsaws to efficiently look after trees in an efficient time saving way. But in saying this we certainly do and will remove dead and dangerous trees as they are identified.

So come to Treeworld and have a chat you might find some very helpfull and friendly arborists who help you if they can.

Jay Dee

Arborist, treehugger, realist, and chainsaw user

Apocalypsse · 16th November 2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayD

At least your comments were published my response never saw the light of day! Why ? maybe because it was not the type of response they were looking for ?

The only response they want seems to be anything that makes this site and the industry look negative. My 2 favourite parts on the intro bit there are:

Quote:

...forum for discussion and information about trees with industry experts’ a large proportion of the avatars members use are either people men chopping down huge trees or holding chainsaws.

&

Quote:

People have to earn a living and I’m sure there’s little money in looking after trees and only slightly more money in writing reports on trees.

Uneducated treehugger ftl...

Back on topic, anyone got copies of the reports for these trees? Curious to see the ones where they dug up parts of the road.

Garry Brockley · 16th November 2010, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

All the details are here

Newcastle City Council-Key documents

The key reports in order as follows.

Marsden report http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/__da...sden_final.pdf

Simonsen report http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/__da...amanStFigs.pdf

Swain report http://www.ncc.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass...rt__090310.pdf

There is conflict though in the QTRA camp.

Tree risk assessments| 15methods compared

Arborist questions fig tree safety risk - Local News - News - General - Newcastle Herald

this from earlier in the thread!!

Eric Frei · 16th November 2010, 08:56 PM

Council is going to cut down a street load of figs in Caloundra, not much wrong with the trees but they're going to do it as they envisage future issues with the trees roots and proximity to services, targets etc. To insinuate that people are tree haters or incompetent because they have a different view is erroneous in itself.

Blow overs or wind thrown trees are very hard to predict. Often they display little to no VTA signs, sometimes there is nothing wrong with them and the blow over due to soil failure. Yeah, you can have root failure or soil failure. Often location, size and form have a lot to do with it.

I think the council is being proactive not waiting for the day when it says woops, another tree fell. Maybe they leaned to far on the "why they should go" rather than the "why they should stay" but ultimately it's their trees and their responsibility so they took action and made a somewhat informed decision. They had the door open for people to help, that is darn great.

At the end of the day the argument for removal won, if anything that means the argument for retention was not strong enough or presented well enough, and Hartley's report was part of that which did receive critique and it would be fair to all to see that.

Another cities approach ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

Pity it takes a death to make change.

New ways to look at our trees - Environment - News - Eastern Courier Messenger

Quote:

2 Nov 10

COUNCILS must lift their game when managing ageing and dying public trees, with a “scorched earth” policy one of the best ways to tackle the issue.

Unley Council operations manager Trevor Stein said the wholesale removal of dying trees produced the best results, despite the community often resisting this approach.

Addressing delegates at the Local Government Association AGM last week, Mr Stein said he recognised it was an emotive and difficult issue for communities.

“What a scorched earth process does is it gets all the old trees out in one hit and it gets the new trees established at the same rate,” he said.

“We’ve had some of our best successes when we’ve taken out all of the old stock and replaced them with new stock.

“Then the trees develop at the same rate (and) they reach their canopy at the same rate and they develop, if you like a streetscape at the same rate.

“People don’t always want to go down that process and trying to convince the residents (is) something councils all over Australia have struggled with for years.”

Mr Stein’s comments followed recommendations by a panel examining tree management on public land for councils to apply local tree management policies.

“If you’re going to spend money on trees, to make sure that money is well spent you need to have a policy,” chair Brian Cunningham said.

“We think councils can do more. We think they can be a bit more proactive than they have been.

“This ensures the right trees are planted, the right trees are selected, they are looked after properly, they are put in the right places and they are given enough space to grow.

“Councils will need to replace trees, so education I think is critical to let their members of the council and their community know about the way trees live and die.”

The Independent Inquiry into Management of Trees on Public Land was set up by the LGA and its Mutual Liabilities Scheme after a Glen Osmond woman was killed by a falling tree branch while driving along Greenhill Rd in January.

Its draft recommendations were sent to councils last month, with a final report expected to be released in December.

15th February 2010, 05:28 PM	#2
Drouin Tree Service Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 1,697	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan Wish i was on the panel!!! __________________ Drouin Tree Services \| Excavator Hire - Drouin and SE Gippsland \| Landclearing Melbourne

7th October 2010, 10:53 PM	#5
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan Ground penetrating radar report attached as pics ... there's one more will be in next post Attached Thumbnails __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

7th October 2010, 10:53 PM	#6
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan Last one attached Attached Thumbnails __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

12th October 2010, 09:34 PM	#8
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,649	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan Thats strange that the key witness failed to show, maybe they considered thier reputation too precious to give evidence. no matter what side your on at least give it your best shot don't just pull out and not have your say. Personally i like the marsden report it hits on alot of very good points. __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

7th November 2010, 04:19 PM	#10
CaityR Former Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Newcastle Posts: 17	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan I think you may be interested in a couple of points about this case. One small point is that the Herald, whose reporting on the court case was very good, made one small error in that it was not an arborist who 'failed' to turn up, it was a wildlife expert. On day one of the hearing the community had two arborists ready in court to give evidence and council, I believe, had Mr Marsden, however, the judge would not take evidence from any of them as his attitude was that the council, as the roads authority, had 'formed an opinion' about the risk (allegedly) posed by the trees and the court was not going to revisit that. My understanding is that it was not a 'merit' case. The community were very confident that our arboricultural advice would stand up against council's. Mr Marsden's report has many good things in it, primarily that the only thing he thinks is wrong with these trees are their roots; he had no issues with their vigour, said they had no significant problems with included bark and no evidence of disease. His only issue was their roots; he based his assertion about the absence of roots on trenching that was done several years earlier when documenting services in the lead-up to a proposed Art Gallery redevelopment. It interests the community that any concerns at that time about the stability of the trees based on this alleged absence of roots failed to lead to panic on council's part. Mr Swain, for council, disagreed with his assertion about roots on at least one side of the street. Presumably to prove to the community that the trees had no roots, a ground penetrating radar investigation was commissioned by council in December 2009. When this showed that most of the trees had an obvious radial root system, council failed to release it and the only reason it has seen the light of day is because the community acquired it via a Freedom Of Information request. My understanding is that in sandy, well-drained soil like in Laman Street trees may well be relying on tap roots rather than or as well as superficial roots. Something has certainly made the trees withstand the Pasha Bulker storm of 2007 and three storms with wind gusts of 100km/hour this year alone. One of the major problems with council's handling of this issue is that it seems most if not all of council's arborists have been somehow under the impression that three trees failed in the street in the 2007 storm when this is simply not the case. Again via FOI the pictures that led council to conclude that three trees had to be felled after the storm in which people died and millions of dollars damage were done to the town and 1200 trees failed throughout the city (mainly eucalypts but also including one fig in another street, not Laman Street) revealed underwhelming damage and no root plate failures. These pictures can be viewed at http://s901.???????????.com/albums/a...aman%20Street/ At the $70000 charette (the supposed community consultation exercise) an arborist on behalf of council told the residents present that what looked like radial roots were just 'reflections of minerals in bitumen'. Council valued these trees at $1million a year ago, but mid-year this year their revaluation, obviously using another method, showed they were only worth $68000. To date council has spent $150 000 fighting to remove the trees without a DA: The Herald article: News Store If MRI-like technology or a pull test could prove the safety or otherwise of these sturdy-looking trees which are highly valued by Newcastle, council should use it. Our rates at work.

7th November 2010, 04:28 PM	#11
CaityR Former Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Newcastle Posts: 17	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan I'm not sure why the link to the pictures didn't work - here's a shortened version of it. Underwhelming storm damage 2007 in Laman Street pictures by craschke - ??????????? They're certainly interesting for a non-arborist.

7th November 2010, 06:02 PM	#12
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,649	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan the links didn't work because you broke the loading pics rule Great info though thank you!!! Attached Thumbnails __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

7th November 2010, 08:45 PM	#13
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan So when is a decision out? __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

8th November 2010, 05:34 AM	#14
CaityR Former Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Newcastle Posts: 17	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan We don't know but it's quite nice that it's taking a while to decide.

8th November 2010, 05:38 AM	#15
CaityR Former Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Newcastle Posts: 17	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan Just in case my sarcasm didn't shine through the tree valuation figures, such a difference by the same authority served only to increase my cynicism about the whole exercise and seemed to be yet more spin.

14th November 2010, 02:20 PM	#18
CaityR Former Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Newcastle Posts: 17	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan The community lost in the Land and Environment court. We have a few days to consider whether to appeal. Remember, the court did not listen to evidence from arborists. Does this set a precedent for every other NSW council to call a tree that overhangs a street a traffic hazard? And does this override the environmental protection act? The judgement is at Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc v Newcastle City Council [2010] NSWLEC 231 (11 November 2010) and just in case this link doesn't work here's a shortened version Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc v Newcastle City Council [2010] NSWLEC 231 (11 November 2010)

15th November 2010, 06:29 PM	#20
Drouin Tree Service Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 1,697	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan Mr Hartley’s report, discussed key areas of concern and outlined how errors had been made by Mr Hartley. He concluded that the report was “biased and erroneous in several key areas”. Council’s General Manager circulated this response to councillors. The covering memo stated that “Council management and staff reaffirm their view that the advice received by Mr Marsden, Mr Swain and Mr Simonsen is sound”. My oh my some people shouldn't be writing reports! __________________ Drouin Tree Services \| Excavator Hire - Drouin and SE Gippsland \| Landclearing Melbourne

15th November 2010, 10:54 PM	#22
CaityR Former Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Newcastle Posts: 17	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan I'm a community member who believes the trees are safe so I'm hardly objective. The trees still standing in the street withstood the Pasha Bulker storm. The winds then reached a speed of 124 km/hour. In spite of these trees surviving that and further storms since - at least three 100km/hour 'wind events' this year alone - at least three arborists for council asserted that the trees were unsafe and had only a short tmie to live. I can only say that the community have been completely unswayed by council's opinions. Most members of the community feel completely safe there and go there to have their wedding and school formal photos taken regardless of QTRA ratings that differ wildly and are figures that are unconvincing to the average resident. Mike Ellison, from QTRA, described one rating, of 1 in 19.8, not knowing what street we were talking about, as the equivalent of a 4500mm circumference tree leaning at an angle over a bench occupied by a blind deaf mute. Isn't a tree with a rating like this a tree that could be pulled over with a rope? You should see these trees. The only one with a very low (outdated) SULE rating is a different species which is less attractive than the others and 'could be a problem if a neighbouring tree were removed' (or something similar). Using subjective tree assessments and applying QTRA in ways that may not always accord with the user manual both seem like a problem to me. In this day and age, perhaps we need to be relying on auditable, repeatable, scientific methods to judge tree safety, not simply relying on a consultant's past experience and opinion, especially with a city's most beautiful street, in a heritage area, where not a single tree has previously failed. As you can see in the pictures uploaded above, there were no whole tree failures in Laman Street in 2007. <Could I suggest you read about North Ryde Common where it wasn't until MRI technology was combined with VTA that council was able to save tens of trees condemned by an experienced arborist. The Weekly Times Online> The community here in Newcastle hold the arborists who helped us in very high regard and remain grateful for the opinions they offered and the critiques they supplied us with, and which we have passed on to council. I am particularly grateful to Mr Hartley. I think this street has been a poisoned challice for any arborist who has touched it. The whole experience has been a poisoned one for Newcastle residents. Bye bye trust in local government. Last edited by Eric Frei; 20th May 2011 at 06:30 PM. Reason: Red Zone:- I've received advice linked article is inaccurate, grossly misleading, potentially defamatory and investigating

16th November 2010, 06:37 AM	#24
Apocalypsse Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 1,154	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan HAHahahahahahaha, I'm the first person quoted in that blog.

16th November 2010, 06:56 AM	#25
CaityR Former Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Newcastle Posts: 17	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan My answer to your question is I don't believe Mr Hartley made errors. I believe his advice regarding the use of QTRA was correct. What would make you say council's arborists were unbiased?

16th November 2010, 08:45 AM	#26
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Newcastle Avenue Fig Trees Dispute $70K plan Well, didn't know this was about belief systems, I prefer facts. So why don't you do a RTI on that email or ask Swain or council for a copy etc? Hartley's report received critique, lets read that, after all you had no trouble publishing Hartley's critique of others. I must admit the report lost credibility for me once he commenced his "absurd" and "ridiculous" emotions, absolutely no need for that type of banter. There was a lot of good investigation in those other reports, cutting sections of road to locate roots was great IMHO and far more credible than any QTRA mumbo jumbo which I have consistently frowned upon. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Neighbour Dispute re tree fence line	Treecrazed	Ask an Arborist here	38	3rd May 2010 09:41 AM
Climbing Accident In Newcastle Aus	dci2005	ANNOUNCEMENTS	8	20th December 2008 09:22 PM
Neighbours boundary dispute	angela	Ask an Arborist here	3	31st August 2008 10:21 PM
Flooding plan to save Murray red gums	Eric Frei	General Tree Chat	5	5th October 2007 09:05 PM