Court(JudyFakes) crushes councils refusal for development

Eric Frei · 29th July 2011, 08:37 PM

This is yet another example of inappropriate council decisions fuelled by idiotic reasoning.

Luckily Judy Fakes ruled onside with the landowner that development could proceed.

And the fools should pay the legal costs of the developer. To think that a landowner should be prevented from development so that their degrading forest offers protection to adjacent property owner's trees is frankly IDIOTIC. If you need an environmental buffer ... then buy it!

Quote:

Court crushes council's tree removal ruling
BY SHANE DESIATNIK
27 Jul, 2011 10:57 AM
Council’s refusal of a large subdivision application at 112 Cleopatra Street in Blackheath last December has backfired, with a Land and Environment Court judgment making a mockery of its argument the removal of up to 350 ageing radiata pine trees would pose a safety risk to neighbours and change the “traditional garden setting” of the locality.

At least half a dozen of those trees — recommended for removal by two independent arborists as part of the application — fell down during a damaging wind storm earlier this month.

Commissioner Fakes’ ruling on July 8 in favour of applicant and property owner Bronwen Johnston is understood to potentially cost council up to $100,000 in legal fees.

A council spokesperson was unable to provide a dollar amount at the time of going to press as the parties were still negotiating some final conditions of consent.

On December 14, councillors voted 7-4 in favour of a motion by Clr Adam Searle (seconded by Clr Eleanor Gibbs) to refuse the application, despite a council report and a peer review by Penrith City Council recommending approval on the grounds the application complied with relevant planning controls.

In the lead-up to that decision a group of nearby residents handed a petition to council opposing the sub-division, claiming the removal of a large number of pine trees posed a safety risk.

Commissioner Fakes accepted the evidence of arborists that the overwhelming majority of trees on the site were “in poor condition with a short safe useful life expectancy (20 years) and it was unreasonable for one property to be expected to provide wind protection at the expense of limiting the permissible development of that site”.

“I accept Mr O’Gorman-Hughes’ (the applicant’s legal representative’s) submission that a ‘do nothing’ approach will inevitably lead to the same result of the loss of trees from the site.

“As the trees die or fail, nearby trees may then fail because of wind exposure or through inevitable natural attrition.”

In relation to visual amenity, Commissioner Fakes ruled “I do not accept the council’s position that the trees on the site are typical of a ‘traditional garden setting’.

“The pines on the site are more typical of an unmanaged plantation or naturalised forest.”

A detailed landscaping plan, which was not included in the development application lodged, will now be a condition of consent.

Clrs Janet Mays and Chris Van der Kley told the Gazette they voted against refusal of the development application in December because council’s own report concluded it satisfied the planning requirements.

“I believe it was a folly for council to refuse it — it was done on very flimsy grounds,” Clr Mays said.

“There are a lot of development applications worth fighting, but this is not one of them.”

Clr Van der Kley said he recognised there were issues raised by nearby residents about loss of wind breaks, but he felt the pine trees were dangerous in their current state.

“From my understanding at least 11 trees from the site fell during the recent wind storm.”

Clr Adam Searle said he considered council’s resolution “a sound, reasoned and defensible decision on this application”.

“While I accept that the court has reached a different conclusion, this is another example where the powers given to the court are such that concerns of local communities, expressed through a decision of council, can be set to one side in favour of inappropriate development.”

Ms Johnston declined to offer comment to the Gazette about the judgment.

Trees of contention: Some of the 350 pine trees that will be removed in Blackheath as part of a one-into-10 lot subdivision approved by the Land and Environment Court on July 8. This photo was taken in early December of a group of neighbours opposing the application on the grounds that removal of the trees would expose others to damaging winds.

Beware extremist tree hugging fools and their rhetoric.

Apocalypsse · 29th July 2011, 09:39 PM

Kind of made a solid case when 2 arborists reported trees should be removed and in a windstorm 11 trees coming down. I wish tree huggers would go educate themselves before spewing their uneducated crap.

Jeff Darby · 29th July 2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypsse

Kind of made a solid case when 2 arborists reported trees should be removed and in a windstorm 11 trees coming down. I wish tree huggers would go educate themselves before spewing their uneducated crap.

That's because in most cases they form thier opinion form emotions not facts ! Extremests of any type spells trouble in my eyes,there's a time to nurture and then when needed a time when action is needed to protect those who do not what they are looking at when it comes to the structural visual signs that trees clearly display and Arborists are trained to recognize and assess, with no emotions involved. IMO

derwoodii · 29th July 2011, 10:13 PM

NIMBY's 0 vs Commonsense 1

"There are a lot of development applications worth fighting, but this is not one of them".

The looser is the tax and rate payer as always funding the folly of fools.

Garry Brockley · 30th July 2011, 09:17 AM

The lawyers are the only real winners in these cases! these people dont look at the financial implications of a fight which always comes out of thier pocket eventually, that money should go to education, hospitals, elderly care not be taken up by a bunch of uneducated in tree biology tree huggers.
when are these people goingto realise there are bigger fights out there to be fought instead of wasting our time and rescourses on trees that were condemned twice by industry proffesionals.

plumber comes to your house "sorry love the pipes are corroded and need replacing"
"no i refute those claims! so im going to get another person in and if they say the same i will ignore that information and keep the pipes anyway because i dont accept that a plumber knows more than me"
does that make sense?
Nope!

Brent Ferris · 1st August 2011, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayD

That's because in most cases they form thier opinion form emotions not facts ! Extremests of any type spells trouble in my eyes,there's a time to nurture and then when needed a time when action is needed to protect those who do not what they are looking at when it comes to the structural visual signs that trees clearly display and Arborists are trained to recognize and assess, with no emotions involved. IMO

I am in favour of tree-huggers and their efforts to keep trees - EDUCATED tree huggers that is. I am one myself. And tell my clients so. But, I also tell them that trees don't live forever, and sometimes they have to come down for reasons above and beyond loving the existence of the tree.

I recall one Manitoba Maple that the client wanted down -- and the neighbour didn't. The canopy hung over her children's play set, it was full of leaves, so it was healthy. And telling her the trunk was rotten (30" diameter, 1-2 inches of solid wood at best on outside) had no effect. I showed her the trunk afterwards. She was adamant the tree was healthy, and should not have been removed. Ah! the innocence of the ignorant. Wonder what she would have said when the tree fell over and crushed her kids?

29th July 2011, 09:39 PM	#2
Apocalypsse Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 1,152	Re: Court(JudyFakes) crushes councils refusal for development Kind of made a solid case when 2 arborists reported trees should be removed and in a windstorm 11 trees coming down. I wish tree huggers would go educate themselves before spewing their uneducated crap.

29th July 2011, 10:13 PM	#4
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Court(JudyFakes) crushes councils refusal for development NIMBY's 0 vs Commonsense 1 "There are a lot of development applications worth fighting, but this is not one of them". The looser is the tax and rate payer as always funding the folly of fools.

30th July 2011, 09:17 AM	#5
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,641	Re: Court(JudyFakes) crushes councils refusal for development The lawyers are the only real winners in these cases! these people dont look at the financial implications of a fight which always comes out of thier pocket eventually, that money should go to education, hospitals, elderly care not be taken up by a bunch of uneducated in tree biology tree huggers. when are these people goingto realise there are bigger fights out there to be fought instead of wasting our time and rescourses on trees that were condemned twice by industry proffesionals. plumber comes to your house "sorry love the pipes are corroded and need replacing" "no i refute those claims! so im going to get another person in and if they say the same i will ignore that information and keep the pipes anyway because i dont accept that a plumber knows more than me" does that make sense? Nope! __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

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
Councils pays back tree removers	shaggs	General Tree Chat	19	12th August 2011 10:08 PM
Councils \| Trees \| Neighbours \| Disputes \| Tell Your Story	Eric Frei	The Video Forum	0	28th August 2010 10:37 PM
Onehunga Auckland Tree Failure Crushes Car	Eric Frei	General Tree Chat	0	4th June 2008 10:56 PM
Quick overview of most councils in S/E Melb.	TrevMcRev	Local law regs, start thread with County then State then Country	1	4th April 2007 05:25 PM