concreting in TPZ fences prior to clearing - true!

Eric Frei

I feel there is a strong reluctance within the industry to speak the truth let alone your mind. Best to lay low and brown nose for some I am sure.

I read and see things that are just ridiculous and this one is a true story. I'm sure many would rather this story not be printed and do their best to scare people off from doing so. The fact is the case has gone before the courts and is now publicly accessible (to a degree) as it's over.

On a site in Cleveland the Redland City Council decided to appoint an "expert" to write the criteria for tree protection which would be incorporated into their DA as a condition to be adhered to for the developer.

The Redland City Council in it's IGNORANCE then decides that the Commandments of Tree Protection and Retention has come down from Mount Sinai and the Developer has to argue via lawyers and court their case.

But the case is rather simple in many parts, especially the parts the developer wanted to change.

One condition was that TPZ fences had to be concreted in, into hand dug holes 400mm deep. Here it is straight out of the document.

But here's the clincher, the "Expert" says put the fence up prior to clearing the site. Here it is straight out of the document .... "Erect the fence prior to commencement of clearing (other than within the TPZs)" but does that mean clear the TPZ's first then put the fence up, or put the fence up first, clear everything except what is within TPZ's that needs to be cleared and then take the fence down to clear the TPZ's? Either way it's messy and adds hazards to an already high risk job and hey, this fence is supposed to be concreted in!

I have attached two pictures to show how many trees had to be removed, in fact a few extras were left behind, but it gives you an idea of the density and proximity. Also the contractor who cleared the site did not erect any TPZ fences until he'd finished clearing the whole site .... funny that, so the document was ignored anyway and all fences on site are the typical above ground footing.





Here's a picture of one of the TPZ fences, no digging in and concreting that I can see.



Also note the the specifications of qualifications.

Here's a link to the court document, the tree part starts at page 28. This is a large PDF download, around 24mb.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearch...n=BRISB&doc=25

Attached Thumbnails

     

__________________

jmcg.insight.gardens

That's crazy.............., why concrete them in, you have to dig down severing roots, I just do not see the reasoning behind that, why make a temporary fence permanent, then rip it out again, probably severing more roots. I just do not see the sense in that at all.

But won't that be expensive, cost money in labor, man hours and concrete, who are Redlands Council talking to anyways?

So once the fences are footed in, they have to be removed right?, how is that meant to be done? hand dug out? or ripped out with a skid-steer loader?, doesn't that require more damage to roots, more man hours.

Then you have to get the concrete off the temporary fence, with what? a hammer and chisel? ..................................

Brent Ferris

Looks to me like the land was cleared using an excavator, and the TPZ fences were put up as an afterthought. The document makes it sound like the vegetation within the TPZ is to be left until the project is finished - perhaps to give an idea of what was removed from the rest of the site. THe concrete is an interesting idea, to minimize relocation of poles, but the subsequent damage to root systems - going in and being removed is not well thought out. A surface block to hold posts will work just as well, or what is shown in the pictures,. After all, if someone wants to move the fence they will. If it is concreted in, they'll cut the posts and put them elsewhere.
The bigger problem is the council deciding what is right, and the right way to do the job, but not following up to make sure the job is done as specified. A common problem, unfortunately!

Garry Brockley

where are the workers meant to work? the tpz comes right up to the building.
how are they supposed to do the exterior of the house?
where is the scaffolding going to go? how do you install windows, paint attach facias ect?
there were some messed up decisions i that report!
I mean concreteing the fence in? what kind of an idea is that? concrete contains lime, lime kills trees.
yes hand digging is a good idea but how are they going to get the concreted posts out? Digger kind of negates the idea of hand digging holes. that will be right against the slab.
strange very strange! looks like it was written to try and impress of annoy someone, not practicality or with experience with builders.
I may be wrong but thats how it reads to me.

__________________

Eric Frei

The sequence of events was like this.

1. Developer lodges Arborist Tree Retention Report
2. Council appoints their own arboricultural expert
3. Joint meeting of experts takes place to have 1 report/conditions
4. New joint report has issues developer appoints me to read report and comment/criticise
5. Number of issues noted and I make comment
6. Teleconference set up between their expert/legal team and developers legal team and I
7. Some issues resolved but pretty much last I heard of the case until recently when site is being worked .... development sold and changes hands earlier this year but the Tree Specification linked to in this thread still valid.

In the current document there is provision for a 2.2m set back of TPZ fences to accommodate scaffolding, it's in the sections for each tree (trees 2,3,6,7,8,11,12,13,14) like this:-

That was something both experts overlooked and came about from my involvement. Yet here we are being told to have certain qualifications and experience and both those experts missed stuff, and the developer knew that and that's why they needed another arborist to look at it.

It was during that challenge that the RCC expert attacked personally with written lies to RCC about me, funny that! The QAA have also failed to respond (as usual).

__________________

Brent Ferris

I read thru your threads, and the final result about Chatswood School was encouraging. I was not surprised that writing to the top man had better results; only disappointed that the accident had to happen to bring to light the various practices-- for the top man to become involved and force change. He is the one responsible for changes, and you almost always get better results starting at the top, and working down, then starting at the bottom and hoping for change. Starting at the top, he/she knows about problem and can ask how it is being resolved. At the bottom - it goes nowhere, and to be sure, the top man never hears about it.


With all you have written about QAA it is amazing they are still around. YEt, the worst workers and reps always seem to be called -- prob because they are always in the news, so the thinking goes "they must be ok, or they wouldn't be in the news" or "I've heard this name from somewhere. let's give them a try"; complaints are forgotten until first-hand experience. It is the bona-fide people with little "news" exposure that have most trouble getting work. The average lay person doesn't really know good work from bad, or good workers from poor until the job is done -- bit late then. THey might remember next time -- or the company might be under a different name.

In this latest saga, it sounds like the developer didn't want to be on the hook for failing to do something, so asked for an independent arborist -- more likely to notice absences of facts. Good job Eric!

Eric Frei

And this case just gets better.

After a volley of emails and letters back and forth it appears that I have just witnessed what I consider the best ass covering and twisting exercise by a council yet.

I questioned the council about the number of cemented in TPZ fence posts (excluding existing cemented posts which may have been utilized) in total and the number of posts total on the site to get an idea of %, for example, 50 TPZ fence posts on site, 3 cemented in ..... that would equate to 94% non compliance and why the heck would you write a specification for the smallest scenario. I also specifically mentioned to council I saw no cemented in TPZ fence posts regardless of their claim that there were some.

I questioned the council why clearing occurred without any TPZ fences in place.

I did receive some lame answers like there was provision for posts on footings if they could not be hand dug ..... however I doubt so many could not be hand dug.

Detail after detail was carefully twisted or omitted.

When finally there was sufficient evidence that what occurred on the site in comparison to the Specification differed here's what I read in the latest letter.



And where did they get the "generally in accordance with"? Well from the link above Courts DA note 2.1.



So generally we can screw over whoever we want whenever we want however we want, regardless of what is written. Certainly the new owner didn't get screwed over, but the previous owner did.

The original client who owned this land fought legally for the very things that happened anyway. Yes the council wasted tax payers funds resisting changes to their Specifications, wasted many peoples time and money. And when found out and contested they hide behind .....

"generally in accordance with"

Attached Thumbnails

   

__________________

Rob Chace

...that's not how i read it.
And I quote:

"2.1
The development must be carried out .... listed under Conditions 1.1 UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED by a CONDITION of THIS APPROVAL."

so, "generally in accordance with the details" is only applicable with an exception?

Jeff Darby

I say to their "generally in accordance" to what ever?

IS

"TYPICAL"

Typically twisted to suit their own vested outcome!

__________________

Member: Australian Tree Association

Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard !

Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others

© Jeffrey J Darby 2011

Eric Frei

Must be embarrassing to be the author of that document, fight Eric Frei against changes and see those attempted changes happen anyway by one of your mates.

I say mates because apparently Andrew Stovell (cleared the site) and Adam Tom told council (when this was being investigated) that they were both involved when I was expelled from the QAA in 2009, I have that in writing you know. That formed part of Redland City Council's answer to the things going on, on this site when questioned .... imagine that! It's a fact.

But if Tom and Stovell did not do that then they need to come forward and say so, which would leave the author of that email in deeper trouble for making up lies rather than just perpetuating them. Did you know that perpetuating a lie is also slander?

From the evidence it seems they try hard to discredit people they cannot beat or control. And you think you could take a legitimate complaint like this to the so called industry body? You'd have rocks in your head to think that, they're part of the problem.

__________________

Eric Frei

I have been advised that the approximate figure for the client of legal work, reports etc pertaining to the tree issues of this project was in the vicinity of $75,000

I'm sure RCC's legals aren't free either and what a farce it is to squander money like that on arguing about something that wasn't adhered to anyway.

If you think that these types of obstacles to progress do not come back down the line to the price of a unit or block of land or your rates then you have rocks in your head. Whilst matters like this are being argued the interest cost of finance is being billed.

__________________

Eric Frei

State Govt is determined to cap council charges on developers:-

State slashes development costs | The Australian

Interesting to note Redland City Councils position on this:-

Petition fights State charges - Local News - News - General - Bayside Bulletin / The Redland Times

__________________