BCC at it again ! More Errors

Garry Brockley

As reported in the northern star newspaper weds 31 Mar 10

BRISBANE City Council is investigating
the removal of an old mango tree from the
site of an under-construction bar and grill at
Sandgate, despite giving the establishment
written approval on March 15.
The owner of the 4017 Bar and Grill, on
the site of the former Sandgate Post Office
at 94 Rainbow Street, Sandgate, was given
the approval in a letter dated March 15
signed by Brisbane City Council
Community and Environment Regulation
Compliance and Regulatory Services protected
vegetation officer Sebastian Paris.
The letter said there “is currently no protection
of any category on the vegetation
outlined in your application, as classified
under the Natural Assets Local Law 2003.
Therefore, you do not currently require a
permit for interference with protected vegetation,
for the purpose of removing the one
‘mangifera indica’ (mango tree) on the
southern section of the property.”
Consulting surveyors and town planners
Murray and Associates also confirmed the
approval by letter.
The tree was subsequently removed on
March 18 to accommodate the construction
of a deck at the new restaurant.
However, on March 23, two Brisbane
City Council officers attended the site to
inform owner Paul Kelly and restaurant
manager Kim Midgley that no approval had
been given.
Ms Midgley said they had submitted two
applications regarding the tree - including
one on January 20, for which they were
given the approval.
A Brisbane City Council spokeswoman
simply answered the Star Newspaper’s
questions regarding the removal of the tree
by stating: “Brisbane City Council is conducting
an investigation into this matter.”
The Rainbow Street investigation follows
the recent removal of a 65-year-old ‘Ficus
benjamina’ (weeping fig) at Yundah Street,
Shorncliffe, on March 6 and subsequent
Brisbane City Council investigation.
That tree was removed after its roots
were soon to be lifting dangerously from
the kerb.
The roots had previously been damaged
during the installation of a drainage system
by Brisbane City Council in January.
Under Natural Assets Local Law 2003
individuals can face a maximum penalty of
up to $37,500 for damage to trees protected
by the act. Corporations may face a maximum
penalty of up to $53,750.
-Emily Eklund

http://www.baystar.com.au/currentweek/01.pdf

__________________

Eric Frei

Well, seems the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.

There's serious problems in there, both with the systems and the people.

In this thread, Landmark Tree Felled| Brisbane Council Blunder, is a video. If you watch you will see in the video the BCC came out to check the job.

When they arrived on the job they stepped out of the car and said, "we've had a complaint you'll have to stop work" and the other guy started taking pictures.

After some discussion and showing our permits all was OK. But have a listen to this inefficient use of resourses and time wasting.

Complaints calls go to the BCC switchboard.

The officers said they came from Annerley to Bridgeman Downs.

So why wouldn't they check internally first to save the callers time, the officers time and not annoy people on legitimate jobs sites? Because they're hopeless and waste resources. It was my opening comment to the two officers, "you'd think you'd check your own department before coming out here and wasting our time".

If the complaint call was dealt with correctly the caller should have heard something like this, "Thanks for your call Mr Treehugger but records show that a permit for removing the tree has been granted so there's no need for us to continue."

Also do not overlook this other thread.

Dirty Tricks By Brisbane City Council

__________________

chrisingham

Exactly!