Open email to Gold Coast City Council Mayor

Ekka · 23rd August 2007, 09:55 PM

Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 2:41 PM
Subject: Tree Assessment on private property - published also in public forum

Mayor Cr Ron Clarke

Please take this matter on board and to the relevant department ... and investigate what I see as an issue concerning the Council's assessment of private trees. Please advise me of the outcome.

The Issue:-

Where trees are protected by GCCC and the owner wants to either prune or remove the tree the current procedure is for the owner to send paperwork to GCCC. Then the council visit and make assessment on the tree and pass recommendations which may or may not include removal/pruning etc (totally free by the way).

The issue is clear, why has the council taken on this task? In every other area I work in the councils specify a report from a suitably qualified arborist be submitted detailing the trees conditions (an assessment) and management options along with recommendations. This is an area people like me trained and educated for. However the GCCC has blanketly taken this consultative task from the private sector.

Furthermore, it also has been scrutinized by fellow arborists that more trees than necessary may have been removed as the council "err's" on the side of caution. In addition the trees/owners may have limited specifications of work proposed based on judgments other than the trees assessments ... for example, we couldn't expect pensioner Smith to pay for root barrier and cabling when it would be cheaper to remove the tree. This are real scenarios.

Finally, and correct me if I am wrong. But I believe the GCCC is self insured and not part of the larger insurance pool used by over 100 councils Australia wide. If this is the case it means they are unable to draw upon the pool of legal knowledge and experience pertaining to failed trees that were declined removal. That situation may in turn be fueling your tree assessment officers into removing more trees than justifiably necessary.

In other councils we assess trees and write reports, the council officers read the reports and can call us to discuss issues or even ask for further detail. This then alleviates lots of field calls and shifts some liability away from council to the owner/contractor. It also allows us to earn a living to pay rates, offer more than a chainsaw service, educate more customers in tree health care and prevent non tree owners from subsidizing tree works/assessments when they don't own any (all those hi-rise and unit owners!)

I sincerely would like a reply and investigation into the management of trees on private land.

I have also publicly published this email on a well respected forum and encourage interaction from officers there if they like, it is free and open, it's when we work together that we achieve most. The forum is www.treeworld.info

Kindest regards
Eric Frei
Dip Hort Cert III Arb + some
Brisbane Palm and Tree Services - Qualified Tree Lopping
We are all about trees - qualified tree care professionals in Brisbane
www.treeworld.info

Quintrex · 25th August 2007, 01:28 AM

Most councils in Sydney operate along the same lines as GCCC. TPO's and TMO's are usually fairly well qualified Arborists, but levels of experience vary greatly. If VTA does not reveal obvious defects, councils will often request an independant Arb report. Similarly, tree owners often obtain a report either to challenge a council's decision or to add credibility to an application.
As I previously posted, Campbelltown CC (south west Sydney) requires a report with every removal application, but does not seem to care about the content of the report and seldom refuse an application???

Ekka · 25th August 2007, 02:23 AM

In the middle of a water crisis the council doesn't offer the same service for free beyond the water meter.

Neither does the electrical supplier come assess your wiring beyond the meter box.

Why is it the tree industry seems to get shafted from so many angles?

So in effect if you lived on a modest 3000m2 block you could request removal of every tree and they would have to come and assess them all ... for free. Seems to be shifting responsibility away from the tree owner to.

Where trees have obvious defects and evidence supporting such with no loss of habitat they could just express them through, then for other requiring more scrutiny they throw it back on the arborist to supply the data.

The interesting part here is if they currently are responsible for all vegetation assessments then they know what the decision making parameters are. For instance how hollow, what degree of lean, what target value, species, etc etc. They are making the same decision so all we need to do is provide the data, and earn a living rather than see our job taken away.

They could, and other councils do, provide a reference sheet of criteria they need, species, DBH, ht, age, vigour, inclusions, hollows, defects, habitat, previous failures/broken limbs etc. Not rocket science, and they can spend more time managing their own trees in their own properties/parks etc.

I am a believer in governments are there to govern, not take my job, perhaps if they did more governing than trying to do our jobs they'd have a more efficient and less costly burden torate payers.

It took GCCC almost 2 weeks to assess trees on a vacant block, they're very busy you know, had I have had to write a report for those trees would have had the same outcome. Three trees had to stay, I already told my client that I doubted they'd get permission to remove them as there were no defects and they were semi mature of good form in a spot where there was no building.

I often inform people that where the tree is healthy and there's no defects it's a futile exercise getting a report as I cannot condemn the tree, however the report will give you management options and an obligation to care for the said protected trees ... where in lies another anomaly.

As custodians of a protected tree there is no obligation to care for it. In fact park your boat there then take out the bungs after a day on the salt water, rinse your weed spray pressure pack out there and always degrease your engine there. These things are true, then when the tree is dead council will let you take the tree down. However, if you were obligated to care for that tree and lost a bond if it died you might have a vested interest in getting an arborist annually for a check up and to make sure the tree is managed.

As you can see, many ideas can work, if you are fair dinkum about trees and our industry.

treestyle · 29th August 2007, 02:02 AM

PRSC has a rate rebate on land that the owner has agreed to conserve as remnant vegatation, perhaps there could be some sort of rebate for protecting significant trees. to some extent council should offer a free tree consultation service to residents.........ONLY if it encourages and strives to protect more trees. some people just can't afford to care for trees. we all share this world, even though the people in the high rise don't have trees they still benefit from mine,.......they should contribute accordingly to the preservation of trees.

Ekka · 29th August 2007, 02:25 AM

Quote:

to some extent council should offer a free tree consultation service to residents.........ONLY if it encourages and strives to protect more trees.

We all have the same responsibility to save water but doesn't mean the plumber is paid for by the council free does it?

We all drive a car and have to maintain it's roadworthy condition and if you cannot afford that then the car is off the road.

Councils have no obligation to offer anything free, they are there to make and enforce local law not do my job on private land, that's a system Russia tried and failed.

"Mary, yes the tree has a VPO on it and for you to obtain a permit to either prune it or remove it you will be required to supply a qualified arborists report with full details as to why specifying and illistrating all areas of concern as per xzy.1 of the local law act. The arborist writing the report must be a minimum of AQF L4 and 5 years field experience. Council can then assess the report and see if in deed the tree warrants removal, pruning or any other works."

Then if the report is pretty hopeless you have to go out, or ring the arborist and tell them the report is not specific or detailed enough ...

Many places are doing this, especially on development sites. Many councils charge for each application whether approved or declined and per tree in some cases.

If indeed the council feel obligated and it's there responsibility to assess trees then they need to subside us contractors from who they take the work or outsource the field visit to suitably qualified contractors like they do with so many other things.

treestyle · 29th August 2007, 02:53 AM

i do agree to most of that Ekka,

But i'm thinking of the last big gum for another 10 km's. you know the one lone tree poking out from the roof tops. yes it's on private property, but 1 million people might look at that tree a day, not to mention the wildlife it supports, although it's on someone elses property we all benefit from it.

Imagine the same tree riddled with dead wood, the owner is scared that the tree is going to kill them (maybe in their sleep?). what happens if they can't afford to get the dead wood removed or the tree suitably pruned (atleast easing their paranoia). the council's not obliged to help and what kinda successful business man is gonna do the job for nothing?

The owner might decide the only option left is to poison the thing.

Who loses out? the tree owner or the rest of the community?

....I think the real problem is that i'm a dreamer NOT a realist........

Ekka · 29th August 2007, 04:53 AM

Good point.

What's to stop anybody poisoning their own trees?

#1 I know that dead trees are protected on in the Gold Coast councils TPO's! Yep, many overlook habitat. So there's rule change #1 to include dead trees.

#2 Here's what Logan council does, forces the tree work (via 3 bid system to contractors) and bills it to their rates, end of story. If they dont pay their rates or the extra it accumilates interest yada yada.

#3 To prevent them poisoning also perhaps a bond on the tree at point of sale ... all future house sales with protected trees have bonds on the trees, tree dies you lose the money, works for developers. Dont like the trees, dont buy the house, but how many times do you cut down a houseload of trees when the new owner moves in? Lots! Oh, not fair if tree died natural causes, when did you call the plumber out, 2 weeks after the burst main or straight away? Same here, get arborists report, if senile and died fair enough, if you killed it etc lose your bond. You need an incentive for people to give a shit.

#4 People neglect trees anyway and then claim it on insurance.

So there's another avenue where protected trees need annual check ups, if they're not up to scratch no insurance and back to rule #2.

So, when you sit down and think about it there are ways, fairly easy ways to do it, but what we got aint right.

newguy18 · 29th August 2007, 06:21 PM

Great letter Ekka.I do wish that there was a regulation of thw wide spread removals where I live but it's not my decision.

groundpounder · 1st September 2007, 05:26 AM

In the city and county of Denver the "street trees" are owned by the city, but the responsibility for their care lies with the homeowner if it is in front of their home. You must have a permit to do anything to one of these trees. There are code inspectors that cruise around and hand out citations for pruning, removal,etc. American elms must be protected from DED. The cost of all of this is on the home owner, although the city will take care of the problem if the homeowner can not afford to and will set up a pament plan.
Several years ago it became popular to buy an old home in the city and scrape everything off of the property and rebuild. As Treestyle said, the benefit of these mature trees that were being scraped off did not end at their respective property lines. The city could do nothing about the problem as it was private property. Long story short,neighbors and Arborists got together to educate the new property owners as to the value of what they had and how to protect them during the scrape off process, and trees were saved. Of course there were the Aholes that removed trees any way because they owned them and nobody was going to tell them what to do (picture your three year old screaming "MINE, MINE, MINE!) but the public was educated and the tree guys gained some lifetime customers. Scrape offs are no longer as popular as they were, but the effects of the grass roots effort remain even today.

23rd August 2007, 09:55 PM	#1 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,943	Open email to Gold Coast City Council Mayor Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 2:41 PM Subject: Tree Assessment on private property - published also in public forum Mayor Cr Ron Clarke Please take this matter on board and to the relevant department ... and investigate what I see as an issue concerning the Council's assessment of private trees. Please advise me of the outcome. The Issue:- Where trees are protected by GCCC and the owner wants to either prune or remove the tree the current procedure is for the owner to send paperwork to GCCC. Then the council visit and make assessment on the tree and pass recommendations which may or may not include removal/pruning etc (totally free by the way). The issue is clear, why has the council taken on this task? In every other area I work in the councils specify a report from a suitably qualified arborist be submitted detailing the trees conditions (an assessment) and management options along with recommendations. This is an area people like me trained and educated for. However the GCCC has blanketly taken this consultative task from the private sector. Furthermore, it also has been scrutinized by fellow arborists that more trees than necessary may have been removed as the council "err's" on the side of caution. In addition the trees/owners may have limited specifications of work proposed based on judgments other than the trees assessments ... for example, we couldn't expect pensioner Smith to pay for root barrier and cabling when it would be cheaper to remove the tree. This are real scenarios. Finally, and correct me if I am wrong. But I believe the GCCC is self insured and not part of the larger insurance pool used by over 100 councils Australia wide. If this is the case it means they are unable to draw upon the pool of legal knowledge and experience pertaining to failed trees that were declined removal. That situation may in turn be fueling your tree assessment officers into removing more trees than justifiably necessary. In other councils we assess trees and write reports, the council officers read the reports and can call us to discuss issues or even ask for further detail. This then alleviates lots of field calls and shifts some liability away from council to the owner/contractor. It also allows us to earn a living to pay rates, offer more than a chainsaw service, educate more customers in tree health care and prevent non tree owners from subsidizing tree works/assessments when they don't own any (all those hi-rise and unit owners!) I sincerely would like a reply and investigation into the management of trees on private land. I have also publicly published this email on a well respected forum and encourage interaction from officers there if they like, it is free and open, it's when we work together that we achieve most. The forum is www.treeworld.info Kindest regards Eric Frei Dip Hort Cert III Arb + some Brisbane Palm and Tree Services - Qualified Tree Lopping We are all about trees - qualified tree care professionals in Brisbane www.treeworld.info __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding and Stump Removal Brisbane Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations, Developer, Tree and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

25th August 2007, 02:23 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,943	In the middle of a water crisis the council doesn't offer the same service for free beyond the water meter. Neither does the electrical supplier come assess your wiring beyond the meter box. Why is it the tree industry seems to get shafted from so many angles? So in effect if you lived on a modest 3000m2 block you could request removal of every tree and they would have to come and assess them all ... for free. Seems to be shifting responsibility away from the tree owner to. Where trees have obvious defects and evidence supporting such with no loss of habitat they could just express them through, then for other requiring more scrutiny they throw it back on the arborist to supply the data. The interesting part here is if they currently are responsible for all vegetation assessments then they know what the decision making parameters are. For instance how hollow, what degree of lean, what target value, species, etc etc. They are making the same decision so all we need to do is provide the data, and earn a living rather than see our job taken away. They could, and other councils do, provide a reference sheet of criteria they need, species, DBH, ht, age, vigour, inclusions, hollows, defects, habitat, previous failures/broken limbs etc. Not rocket science, and they can spend more time managing their own trees in their own properties/parks etc. I am a believer in governments are there to govern, not take my job, perhaps if they did more governing than trying to do our jobs they'd have a more efficient and less costly burden torate payers. It took GCCC almost 2 weeks to assess trees on a vacant block, they're very busy you know, had I have had to write a report for those trees would have had the same outcome. Three trees had to stay, I already told my client that I doubted they'd get permission to remove them as there were no defects and they were semi mature of good form in a spot where there was no building. I often inform people that where the tree is healthy and there's no defects it's a futile exercise getting a report as I cannot condemn the tree, however the report will give you management options and an obligation to care for the said protected trees ... where in lies another anomaly. As custodians of a protected tree there is no obligation to care for it. In fact park your boat there then take out the bungs after a day on the salt water, rinse your weed spray pressure pack out there and always degrease your engine there. These things are true, then when the tree is dead council will let you take the tree down. However, if you were obligated to care for that tree and lost a bond if it died you might have a vested interest in getting an arborist annually for a check up and to make sure the tree is managed. As you can see, many ideas can work, if you are fair dinkum about trees and our industry. __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding and Stump Removal Brisbane Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations, Developer, Tree and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

29th August 2007, 04:53 AM	#7 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,943	Good point. What's to stop anybody poisoning their own trees? #1 I know that dead trees are protected on in the Gold Coast councils TPO's! Yep, many overlook habitat. So there's rule change #1 to include dead trees. #2 Here's what Logan council does, forces the tree work (via 3 bid system to contractors) and bills it to their rates, end of story. If they dont pay their rates or the extra it accumilates interest yada yada. #3 To prevent them poisoning also perhaps a bond on the tree at point of sale ... all future house sales with protected trees have bonds on the trees, tree dies you lose the money, works for developers. Dont like the trees, dont buy the house, but how many times do you cut down a houseload of trees when the new owner moves in? Lots! Oh, not fair if tree died natural causes, when did you call the plumber out, 2 weeks after the burst main or straight away? Same here, get arborists report, if senile and died fair enough, if you killed it etc lose your bond. You need an incentive for people to give a shit. #4 People neglect trees anyway and then claim it on insurance. So there's another avenue where protected trees need annual check ups, if they're not up to scratch no insurance and back to rule #2. So, when you sit down and think about it there are ways, fairly easy ways to do it, but what we got aint right. __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding and Stump Removal Brisbane Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations, Developer, Tree and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

29th August 2007, 06:21 PM	#8 (permalink)
newguy18 Part of the Furniture Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Live Oak Florida home of the crapiest trees you will ever see. Posts: 2,683	Great letter Ekka.I do wish that there was a regulation of thw wide spread removals where I live but it's not my decision. __________________ Have your say join us today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzfzb...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-OqK...eature=related

1st September 2007, 05:26 AM	#9 (permalink)
groundpounder Sappling Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Centennial Co. Posts: 21	Re: Open email to Gold Coast City Council Mayor In the city and county of Denver the "street trees" are owned by the city, but the responsibility for their care lies with the homeowner if it is in front of their home. You must have a permit to do anything to one of these trees. There are code inspectors that cruise around and hand out citations for pruning, removal,etc. American elms must be protected from DED. The cost of all of this is on the home owner, although the city will take care of the problem if the homeowner can not afford to and will set up a pament plan. Several years ago it became popular to buy an old home in the city and scrape everything off of the property and rebuild. As Treestyle said, the benefit of these mature trees that were being scraped off did not end at their respective property lines. The city could do nothing about the problem as it was private property. Long story short,neighbors and Arborists got together to educate the new property owners as to the value of what they had and how to protect them during the scrape off process, and trees were saved. Of course there were the Aholes that removed trees any way because they owned them and nobody was going to tell them what to do (picture your three year old screaming "MINE, MINE, MINE!) but the public was educated and the tree guys gained some lifetime customers. Scrape offs are no longer as popular as they were, but the effects of the grass roots effort remain even today.

25th August 2007, 01:28 AM	#2 (permalink)
Quintrex Mature tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 464	Most councils in Sydney operate along the same lines as GCCC. TPO's and TMO's are usually fairly well qualified Arborists, but levels of experience vary greatly. If VTA does not reveal obvious defects, councils will often request an independant Arb report. Similarly, tree owners often obtain a report either to challenge a council's decision or to add credibility to an application. As I previously posted, Campbelltown CC (south west Sydney) requires a report with every removal application, but does not seem to care about the content of the report and seldom refuse an application???

29th August 2007, 02:02 AM	#4 (permalink)
treestyle Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: North Brisbane Posts: 128	PRSC has a rate rebate on land that the owner has agreed to conserve as remnant vegatation, perhaps there could be some sort of rebate for protecting significant trees. to some extent council should offer a free tree consultation service to residents.........ONLY if it encourages and strives to protect more trees. some people just can't afford to care for trees. we all share this world, even though the people in the high rise don't have trees they still benefit from mine,.......they should contribute accordingly to the preservation of trees.

29th August 2007, 02:53 AM	#6 (permalink)
treestyle Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: North Brisbane Posts: 128	i do agree to most of that Ekka, But i'm thinking of the last big gum for another 10 km's. you know the one lone tree poking out from the roof tops. yes it's on private property, but 1 million people might look at that tree a day, not to mention the wildlife it supports, although it's on someone elses property we all benefit from it. Imagine the same tree riddled with dead wood, the owner is scared that the tree is going to kill them (maybe in their sleep?). what happens if they can't afford to get the dead wood removed or the tree suitably pruned (atleast easing their paranoia). the council's not obliged to help and what kinda successful business man is gonna do the job for nothing? The owner might decide the only option left is to poison the thing. Who loses out? the tree owner or the rest of the community? ....I think the real problem is that i'm a dreamer NOT a realist........

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