Brisbane City Council's $6K RIP OFF!

Eric Frei · 29th December 2008, 04:24 PM

They are going to charge the home-owner ... so

why cant the home-owner get their own people?

The trees a hazard that Energex would love to see gone anyway.

By the way, for a removal Energex by law has to provide 3m of clearance around those wires, in fact, play your cards right and they'd near have to take it down for you. I doubt anyone has explored these avenues.

Even after the deductions for stump grinding etc the take down value is $3500 which is rather excessive and wouldn't it be nice to make that sort of dough for a a few hours work.

Who and how do people get these cream overpaying jobs anyway?

They're saying the tree is a "silk tree" which should be a Albizia julibrissin but I'm not so sure and it's hard to tell from photo's. It does look like an Albizia of sorts though.

Ratepayer slugged $6000 for nusiance tree removal | The Courier-Mail

Quote:

Alison Sandy
December 26, 2008 11:00pm

BRISBANE City Council has slugged one of its ratepayers $6000 to remove a "public" tree and plant six replacements to make way for a driveway.

Robert Hankins, from Windsor in Brisbane's north, said he applied to have the large silk tree removed to make way for a driveway renovation he had been trying to undertake for five years.

"The tree is in fact a significant nuisance and one massive root runs 3.5m into our property and threatens the footings of the house, phone and gas lines and dividing wall," he said.

"Other roots run out to the road and have caused the kerbing and road to be dangerous and in need of extensive repair.

"Naturally the footpath near the tree is unusable pretty much all of the time."

The council said it would cost Mr Hankins $3000 to remove the tree, $1500 to grind the stump and $1000 for the "supply, plant, maintenance" of six replacement trees "with streetscape" plus miscellaneous costs.

A council spokesman said Mr Hankins was "required to pay because the tree is not his tree but rather a public tree which is being removed at his behest for driveway works".

"The tree belongs to the ratepayers of Brisbane, it has a value, and it should be replaced," the spokesman said.

But Mr Hankins labelled the situation a "farce".

He said it was unfair and frustrating to be asked to pay for the tree's removal when it was causing so much damage.

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said in a letter that he acknowledged problems with the tree roots but said council would not pay for the tree's removal because it was to accommodate Mr Hankins' driveway renovation.

"Council has approved the removal of the tree (but) council will not, however, pay for the removal of the tree," he said.

Central ward councillor David Hinchliffe said Mr Hankins' refusal to pay was "understandable".

"It should be made clear that the tree's removal is not the result solely of the application for the driveway," Cr Hinchliffe said.

"I strongly support Mr Hankins' request for reconsideration of the condition he pay for the removal and replacement of the tree."

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=windsor+qld&hl=en&ll=-27.429737,153.027331&spn=0.003023,0.008256&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=49.215345,135.263672&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-27.429858,153.027308&panoid=h8VUEkMQnODKVXewmBbdWQ&cbp=12,158.35,,0,-6.2
And here's a pic of it.

Eric Frei · 6th January 2009, 10:02 PM

Went out there today for a decent look.

Apparently the old driveway was busted from tree roots so he wants to get a new one.

When he went to lay a new one the BCC people told him he needs to get a permit, pretty rude considering he already had a driveway.

But anyway, the BCC driveway people come out and have a look and suggest the tree goes.

So the bloke asks for the tree to go but the BCC tree huggers say no, move the driveway 3m up hill, but that makes it unusable due to the angle of approach etc.

Then BCC boys rocked up one day and root blasted the roots on the property owners side, apparently didn't even ask.

And that's where we are at today.

Anyway, I took some pics, very interesting ... none of those BCC boys picked up how damaged this tree is, especially the roots. They DID NOT PICK UP THESE FRUITING BODIES.

So lets run through this with pictures.

The tree is an Albizia lebbeck, perhaps 1.2m DBH and perhaps 18m tall. It has be "valley pruned" for the communications wire, then the 4 wires above that (240/415V) and then the 3 wires above that (11,000V).

The canopy is heavily weighted to the house.

And there's lots of shoots beneath the wires, likely due to the continual pruning.

A picture of the trunk, the dark spot is where I hosed it to get a CLOSER look, I also scratched away some soil coz my gut feeling was a tree with this sort of root abuse must have decay.

In there was a cluster of what I think is Ganoderma sp fruiting bodies, a nice fresh white one was there too which I circled, they are all fruiting bodies I circled.

On the other side I lifted the tarp and noticed this distinct discolouration on the trunk, it might be Phelinus noxious.

Home-owner said it was the first he heard of fungi etc and said they were more interested in blasting roots inside his property making mess. This is a large root, maybe 200mm dia snaking around near the house, well scuffed of course.

Closer to the tree, maybe 1.5m away from the trunk same root just larger, also well scuffed.

So there you have it.

What a mess, why is the BCC so hell bent on air blasting roots rather than doing a root crown inspection? Why didn't they find the fungi? Are they taking ownership of this hazard or just trying to pass the buck (literally)? Is it reasonable to expect people to have roots like that in there place and when it breaks driveways .... stiff cheddar the tree has rights?

Energex also has a vested interest here, they have to continually prune this tree.

Looking at the form of the tree, all the weight is toward the house with little root system opposite that due to the road. A pruning back to the fence line would actually balance this tree.

Years before the trees at New Farm Park fell over I spotted fruiting bodies just like this, they haven't learned their lessons have they?

You cannot use this footpath, you cant even mow it. It's a sad case of negligence on BCC's behalf.

If in this day and age a one eyed tree hugger suggests you move your driveway 3m then answer this. Why was the tree planted so close to the driveway in the beginning knowing Albizia's can get so big? Why was it planted beneath the wires when across the road where there is NO WIRES THERE'S NO TREES?

This is council gone mad! I see it as them passing the buck, customer wants a driveway so you beauty ... tree is now the home-owners problem.

Oh one LAST THING, this is the same council that paid $260K to move a tree on a private wealthy golf course.
Save the private tree cost $260,000 paid by Brisbane City Council

Urban Treecare NZ · 7th January 2009, 05:52 PM

Man what a load of crap!!!! thats a days work at the most and a day to grind and replant at a stretch!!! No wonder people think that arborists are a rip off!
Surely if the tree is pruned by energex it is a Council tree?? In my neck of the woods private trees are owners responsibily unless they are on the border of council and private property.... $1500 to grind the stump!!

newguy18 · 8th January 2009, 02:41 AM

Shit,if the power company removes everything 3m back from the lines,that a fairly simple removal,espically since you could probabley get an ewp in there,a day and a half to remove and grind the stump,another half day to plant the other trees,depending on size of course,best to plant a small growing tree.

Robert Hankins · 29th January 2009, 01:08 AM

Thanks Eric,
Its going slowly. A few weeks ago I wrote to the Lord Mayor again but this time I concentrated on the issues 1. The Council tree is huge and overhangs the house 2. the root system has invaded our yard in a dangerous way i.e its a tripping hazard and is likely to affect the house footings and other concrete structures 3. the Council's airblasting of the tree roots has destabilized the tree and left dangerous potholes in our yard 4. the tree shows signs of disease i.e. the fungal fruiting bodies 5. can council assure me the tree is safe and won't fall on our house and if so, by what method of measurement have they proved it satisfactory.

No reply has been made but I am assured that a reply is only 2 weeks away. I don't believe that they will give in. I am hoping that if the Lord Mayor's reply does not address any of the issues or answers in a completely pathetic way (which I do expect), then the media may do a follow-up story. It's hard to believe that Council can completely ignore my questions on safety and get away with it. I have a few other ideas to try yet.

It's like we live in a Monty Python World and I'm corresponding with The Department of Silly Answers and their chief Mr Careful Numbbrain.

Robert

Eric Frei · 29th January 2009, 08:55 PM

Robert,

I also reported the tree as hazardous to BCC, here's a copy of the email they sent confirming.

Quote:

Dear Mr Frei,

Thank you for submitting your request to Brisbane City Council.

I have forwarded a service request regarding your enquiry to the work unit responsible for street tree maintenance. The service request will be investigated within thirty working days. The service request reference number is 25986977.

Your original email is included below.

If you have any further Brisbane City Council enquiries, please access the Contact Council page available from the Home Page - Brisbane City Council or phone our 24 hour Contact Centre on (07) 3403 8888.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda
Customer Contact Centre
Officer Code: ccc139

*****************************
Mr frei's email 7/1/09:
Hazardous tree making footpath unuseable.
Details with pictures here.

http://www.treeworld.info/f9/brisban...html#post51002

*****************************

I also have a few media contacts if you find yourself pressed to get the story on prime time.

No doubt the tree is a "private nuisance" for you and a "public nuisance" for others. I always thought the rule for footpath trees was that they had to be far enough away from the edge of the road so that a car door could be opened and people get in and out. That's pretty much standard in most places however not only BCC but many other councils must think no-one gets out of the passengers side of the car .... then again could be just a Brisbane regional thing.

Lets see the response you get.

treeseer · 29th January 2009, 09:25 PM

Mr. Hankins,

Regret your difficulty but suggest you and Mr. Frei focus on stability of tree and less on nuisances. Sidewalks and driveways can be made useable and tree roots accommodated with them. The decay at the base is a major concern and it's unfortunate council missed that. Good on Eric for uncovering and notifying.

Eric first pic shows steep decline on stem over house but later pic does not. different time of year? if the lead over the house is slower to leaf out that is another indicator of serious decline and stability issues.

Eric as an arborist maybe the Hankins will get better treatment if you can focus more on arboriculture and less on donrossian rants

on ancillary issues and calling every nuisance a "hazard". Is it something in the water over there?

"why is the BCC so hell bent on air blasting roots rather than doing a root crown inspection?"--this is the crux of the matter.

Eric Frei · 29th January 2009, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treeseer

Sidewalks and driveways can be made useable and tree roots accommodated with them.

That doesn't appear to be the case in this instance now does it. Did you read the entire thread about the events as they unfolded?

I think this is a great test case of what BCC can get away with ... with tree's and their arborists used to vandalize rate payers property.

Many issues involving trees go beyond arboriculture. Arboriculture is the care of trees, it is tree focused. However there's more a stake here than just the tree. Have a look at the pictures, now this guy doesn't have driveway and his front yard has more pot holes than the Gaza strip!

TrevMcRev · 29th January 2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treeseer

....and less on donrossian rants

.

I were just thinkng the same thing. For a successful outcome please try to refrain from the "DonRoss" approach.

Present the facts, clear & consise, and back it with formalised legal advice of the best you can afford.

The chicken little sky is falling approach will just make the council think you are another crazy tree fearer.

It looks like you do have a good case for removal, good luck.

Davo The Terrible · 12th May 2010, 10:09 PM

Wow, I really don't think that tree was worth keeping - it's form has been totally wrecked. It looks like the Council came round eventually - see the pics below.

I sometimes wonder how smart it is to plant any trees under power lines. The only time I have seen it work well is when using Poinciana (Delonix regia) or to a lesser extent, Tuckeroo (Cupaniopsis anacardiodes), because of their low spreading canopy.

Eric Frei · 12th May 2010, 10:15 PM

Well, we only see the tree is gone but who did it and paid for it is the unanswered question at this stage.

Apocalypsse · 16th May 2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davo The Terrible

I sometimes wonder how smart it is to plant any trees under power lines. The only time I have seen it work well is when using Poinciana (Delonix regia) or to a lesser extent, Tuckeroo (Cupaniopsis anacardiodes), because of their low spreading canopy.

My local council got it right 10-15 years ago by planting Prunus', a boat load of different ones with the purple leaves. None of them reached the HV, they didnt even hit the LV. The ones planted in my street are 10+ years old with no failures, none of them are rotting away, but the ones on the main road are fkd. But now the council has gone back to failure, they've planted plain trees under low hanging LV/HV.

Davo The Terrible · 16th May 2010, 04:19 PM

Yeah, I can't imagine that Plane tree situation turning out well. Can you tell me more about those Prunus - did they actually form a shady canopy for the sidewalk? Or are they shaped more like shrubs?

6th January 2009, 10:02 PM	#2
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,994	what a mess Went out there today for a decent look. Apparently the old driveway was busted from tree roots so he wants to get a new one. When he went to lay a new one the BCC people told him he needs to get a permit, pretty rude considering he already had a driveway. But anyway, the BCC driveway people come out and have a look and suggest the tree goes. So the bloke asks for the tree to go but the BCC tree huggers say no, move the driveway 3m up hill, but that makes it unusable due to the angle of approach etc. Then BCC boys rocked up one day and root blasted the roots on the property owners side, apparently didn't even ask. And that's where we are at today. Anyway, I took some pics, very interesting ... none of those BCC boys picked up how damaged this tree is, especially the roots. They DID NOT PICK UP THESE FRUITING BODIES. So lets run through this with pictures. The tree is an Albizia lebbeck, perhaps 1.2m DBH and perhaps 18m tall. It has be "valley pruned" for the communications wire, then the 4 wires above that (240/415V) and then the 3 wires above that (11,000V). The canopy is heavily weighted to the house. And there's lots of shoots beneath the wires, likely due to the continual pruning. A picture of the trunk, the dark spot is where I hosed it to get a CLOSER look, I also scratched away some soil coz my gut feeling was a tree with this sort of root abuse must have decay. In there was a cluster of what I think is Ganoderma sp fruiting bodies, a nice fresh white one was there too which I circled, they are all fruiting bodies I circled. On the other side I lifted the tarp and noticed this distinct discolouration on the trunk, it might be Phelinus noxious. Home-owner said it was the first he heard of fungi etc and said they were more interested in blasting roots inside his property making mess. This is a large root, maybe 200mm dia snaking around near the house, well scuffed of course. Closer to the tree, maybe 1.5m away from the trunk same root just larger, also well scuffed. So there you have it. What a mess, why is the BCC so hell bent on air blasting roots rather than doing a root crown inspection? Why didn't they find the fungi? Are they taking ownership of this hazard or just trying to pass the buck (literally)? Is it reasonable to expect people to have roots like that in there place and when it breaks driveways .... stiff cheddar the tree has rights? Energex also has a vested interest here, they have to continually prune this tree. Looking at the form of the tree, all the weight is toward the house with little root system opposite that due to the road. A pruning back to the fence line would actually balance this tree. Years before the trees at New Farm Park fell over I spotted fruiting bodies just like this, they haven't learned their lessons have they? You cannot use this footpath, you cant even mow it. It's a sad case of negligence on BCC's behalf. If in this day and age a one eyed tree hugger suggests you move your driveway 3m then answer this. Why was the tree planted so close to the driveway in the beginning knowing Albizia's can get so big? Why was it planted beneath the wires when across the road where there is NO WIRES THERE'S NO TREES? This is council gone mad! I see it as them passing the buck, customer wants a driveway so you beauty ... tree is now the home-owners problem. Oh one LAST THING, this is the same council that paid $260K to move a tree on a private wealthy golf course. Save the private tree cost $260,000 paid by Brisbane City Council Attached Thumbnails __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

7th January 2009, 05:52 PM	#3
Urban Treecare NZ Certificate in Horticulture (Level 4) + Diploma in Arboriculture (Level 6) Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Zealand Posts: 256	Re: Brisbane City Council's $6K RIP OFF! Man what a load of crap!!!! thats a days work at the most and a day to grind and replant at a stretch!!! No wonder people think that arborists are a rip off! Surely if the tree is pruned by energex it is a Council tree?? In my neck of the woods private trees are owners responsibily unless they are on the border of council and private property.... $1500 to grind the stump!!

8th January 2009, 02:41 AM	#4
newguy18 Part of the Furniture Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: orlando,fl Posts: 4,948	Re: Brisbane City Council's $6K RIP OFF! Shit,if the power company removes everything 3m back from the lines,that a fairly simple removal,espically since you could probabley get an ewp in there,a day and a half to remove and grind the stump,another half day to plant the other trees,depending on size of course,best to plant a small growing tree. __________________ Have your say join us today. old schooler

29th January 2009, 01:08 AM	#5
Robert Hankins I'm new here so be nice Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: 9 Brook St Windsor 4030 Posts: 1	Re: Robert Hankins how's it going? Thanks Eric, Its going slowly. A few weeks ago I wrote to the Lord Mayor again but this time I concentrated on the issues 1. The Council tree is huge and overhangs the house 2. the root system has invaded our yard in a dangerous way i.e its a tripping hazard and is likely to affect the house footings and other concrete structures 3. the Council's airblasting of the tree roots has destabilized the tree and left dangerous potholes in our yard 4. the tree shows signs of disease i.e. the fungal fruiting bodies 5. can council assure me the tree is safe and won't fall on our house and if so, by what method of measurement have they proved it satisfactory. No reply has been made but I am assured that a reply is only 2 weeks away. I don't believe that they will give in. I am hoping that if the Lord Mayor's reply does not address any of the issues or answers in a completely pathetic way (which I do expect), then the media may do a follow-up story. It's hard to believe that Council can completely ignore my questions on safety and get away with it. I have a few other ideas to try yet. It's like we live in a Monty Python World and I'm corresponding with The Department of Silly Answers and their chief Mr Careful Numbbrain. Robert

29th January 2009, 09:25 PM	#7
treeseer Former Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SE USA Posts: 753	Re: Brisbane City Council's $6K RIP OFF! Mr. Hankins, Regret your difficulty but suggest you and Mr. Frei focus on stability of tree and less on nuisances. Sidewalks and driveways can be made useable and tree roots accommodated with them. The decay at the base is a major concern and it's unfortunate council missed that. Good on Eric for uncovering and notifying. Eric first pic shows steep decline on stem over house but later pic does not. different time of year? if the lead over the house is slower to leaf out that is another indicator of serious decline and stability issues. Eric as an arborist maybe the Hankins will get better treatment if you can focus more on arboriculture and less on donrossian rants on ancillary issues and calling every nuisance a "hazard". Is it something in the water over there? "why is the BCC so hell bent on air blasting roots rather than doing a root crown inspection?"--this is the crux of the matter.

12th May 2010, 10:09 PM	#10
Davo The Terrible Former Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Gold Coast QLD Posts: 121	Re: Brisbane City Council's $6K RIP OFF! Wow, I really don't think that tree was worth keeping - it's form has been totally wrecked. It looks like the Council came round eventually - see the pics below. I sometimes wonder how smart it is to plant any trees under power lines. The only time I have seen it work well is when using Poinciana (Delonix regia) or to a lesser extent, Tuckeroo (Cupaniopsis anacardiodes), because of their low spreading canopy. Attached Thumbnails

12th May 2010, 10:15 PM	#11
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,994	Re: Brisbane City Council's $6K RIP OFF! Well, we only see the tree is gone but who did it and paid for it is the unanswered question at this stage. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

16th May 2010, 04:19 PM	#13
Davo The Terrible Former Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Gold Coast QLD Posts: 121	Re: Brisbane City Council's $6K RIP OFF! Yeah, I can't imagine that Plane tree situation turning out well. Can you tell me more about those Prunus - did they actually form a shady canopy for the sidewalk? Or are they shaped more like shrubs?

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
Brisbane City Council	Eric Frei	Local law regs, start thread with County then State then Country	7	20th September 2008 11:12 PM
Adelaide city of trees	Sean Freeman	Picture Forum	10	10th March 2008 05:59 PM
Brisbane City Council expedience	Eric Frei	General Tree Chat	1	27th January 2008 01:17 PM
Save the private tree cost $260,000 paid by Brisbane City Council	Eric Frei	General Tree Chat	12	6th December 2007 01:57 PM