Dirty Tricks By Brisbane City Council

Eric Frei

Had a customer ring tonight, real pissed!

He lives on a small acre-age, most around him have cleared but he has a few trees, mainly Euc grandis, torelliana, acmenoides, maculata.

Anyway, a small drain come creek runs under the road from the neighbours and diagonally across the front neighbours lot. The very front corner of his block has a WAV (waterways vegetation protection) on it. But the council lady when I rang said as the property has a piece of it affected (anything within 30m of the waterway) he needs to fill in a form to remove any trees. Do note, there were no trees on the affected WAV section of land.

Cut a long story short he filled in his form to cut down trees to make way for tennis court, new driveway and shed.

In the meantime, rather than address the form the council went ahead and protected all the trees on his property just like that with new VPO's.

So what wasn't protected now is.

That's fuggen disgusting, move the goal posts around in the middle of the game. He asked me what to do, I suggested getting a lawyer plus seeing his local councillor as most fo the trees don't have significant enough issues to warrant removal. If the council didn't back down then I suggested media and news. Others around him cleared their whole blocks, he bought the land recently as the trees were not protected, now he says if he is not allowed to remove trees the block is worth a heck of a lot less and stuffs up plans for development.

Just charming don't you think?

And to think that after the storms bullshit talk by council to relax tree regs all I can say is they waited till the short memory span of people kicked in (about 4 months) and are as staunch as ever. Another rang and said they refused a large ironbark removal on his site that was withing 3m of the building .... asked me if I could do anything about it, I said not if the tree is healthy and of good form etc (removal recommendations mean the tree has to be pretty fugged, want to risk discussing building proximity as a reason might mean council tell him to shift the house too!).

__________________

Jeff Darby

Some council officers are unreasonable. but so are a lot of folk out there. I'm a believer it's your land and you should be able to do what takes your fancy with it.

__________________

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

Urban Treecare NZ

Dont get me started on councils, you may of read some info on other threads I have written.... Doesnt surprise me at all, most council employees are spineless, thats why they work there, dish out the rules but pass the buck or hide behind the desk when questioned

I am a little bias when it comes to councils, my family has been fighting them for 3 years over something that should never have happened. widened a drain from 2-9 metres through our property with no approval or notice, then declaired the piece of land a floodpath so a 10,000 metre area is useless and THEN refused us entry....

__________________
www.urbantree.co.nz www.urbantreecare.co.nz

Garry Brockley

Thats a low down trick. the people that do these things should face an enquiry board to explain thier actions, or have a boss that isnt a jobs worth(oh we cant do that it's more than my jobs worth) the pettyness of these actions is deplorable, it's like they have grown up from school.

__________________

Eric Frei

This diagram gives you bit better of an idea.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Apocalypsse

Poison time methinks, lets see the council refuse to remove a dead and dangerous tree.

Arbomaniac

The council should have to purchase the portion of land if they want to control it.

Bruce Hopf

I have to agree. The Council, should have notified everyone that they were planning on doing this. And I also agree that they should compensate you for the land that they used. Other wise, isn't that what is called Theft of Property? I could be wrong, but that is how I see it. Bruce.

__________________
McCulloch chain saws
1- Pro Mac 60, 1- Pro Mac 700, 2- Mac 10-10 Automatic's, 2- Mini Mac 30's, 2- Mac 110's,
2- Mini Mac 35's, 1- Mac 140 with Automatic Chain Sharpener,
1- Pro Mac 10-10, 1- Mac Cat, 2- Eager Beaver
2.0's, 1- Mac 1-10
Stihl chain saws
2- 044's, 2- 034's, 2- 024's, 1- 064, 1- 084,
Strunk chain saws
1- Busy Beaver, 1- SpeeDemon Special
Stand Back, I Have A Very Extreme Case of CAD (Chain Saw Addiction Disorder).

The Tree Whisperer

Hey TreeKiwi
Sounds pretty judgemental in regards to council workers. I have worked in this industry in the past and found that although I was probably the only one who actually cared about trees, I couldnt fight the beauracracy. Most council tree officers are bound by policy, state legislation, and are ususally managed by engineers who dont have much of a clue about trees.
You as a tree worker only have to deal with trees that you see from day to day. They are not your responsibility you go to a client talk to them either agree to do the work or try and talk them into changing their scope in lieu of better tree helath and outcome and off you go. As a Council tree Officer I have been responsible for 1000's of trees on public land each one supposedly my responsibility. Many I have had to take out because or condemn because of irresponsible past pruning construction etc. Now is the time for TREE PROTECTION. THE TREES WERE HERE BEFORE US!!!!! remember it is buyer beware any body who buys land with trees on it with the idea that they can just remove them at will is in my opinion very foolhardy. WE HAVE DONE ENOUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. there is plenty of free and open land available that allows for teh palcement of a shed there are plenty of engineering concepts and techniques that allow us to redesign around trees.

GOLDEN RULE: If you dont like trees or want them out just to build something (different story if they are structurally defective or diseased or have grown post construction) THEN FIND ANOTHER BLOCK and leave that one to the people who cares for trees. Sorry GUYS but on this I have to disagree the new standards AS4970:2009 Protection of trees on development sites in the first tool modern arborists have been given in Aus. to help retain trees and reduce construction impacts. Which is what true tree care is about and here are acouple of industry professionals now saying what a load of rubbish it is that we cant remove them whenever we want where ever we not.

NOT GOOD IN MY OPINION AND POOR FORM IN REGARDS TO PROFESSIONAL ARBORICUTLURE

windthrown

Oh no, not another ...

Good god but the crappy trees that people save around here. As an experienced arborist and silviculturalist, I am sorry to say that far too many trees these days in urban and suburban environments, as well as natural ones are protected that simply should not be protected. In many cases they should be dropped and replanted. That is my opinion after years of cruising old growth stands in the PNW and doing a lot of tree stand management and tree work here and in California. Any idiot can plant a tree, regardless of where it came from, or how well it will grow. That does not mean that those trees should be allowed to grow, or be protected by some sweeping city laws and local counsils barring cutting of any and all trees, as is the case in the suburbs around here. In my view that is pure BS, and when the next October Storm comes through here there are going to be a lot of dead bodies piled up and a huge amount of damage to structures of all types, becasue way too many stands of poorly sourced trees have been allowed to grow and are protected by the tree fanatics around here. And in many cases, these trees are invasive species that simply do not belong in the American west (thank you Oz, you can have all of these phuking eucs back). In many cases here on Oregon, they planted Doug firs sourced from other locations, and those stands are stagnant, poor growing, or in a state of decay. Not unlike many 'old growth' stands I have seen protected here.

I dunno about Oz, but here in North America there are about twice as many trees now as there were 100 years ago. Here in the western US, trees are planted and grown in aggressive fashion. They are crops. In the case of Doug fir growing here, we plant and clear cut them in rotation, by design. No other method creates more biomass as fast as that. But oh no, all the tree huggers have to scream and complain about it all the time. Then they go home and live in their stick built houses, and write essays about how bad logging is and how bad arborists are, and how we have to save every tree. In my view, if you wanna save this planet of ours, we have to stop reproducing. The growth rate for humans is still exponential, and we will strip this planet clean of resources probably within our current younger generation's lifetime. The trees are not the issue, we are.

windthrown

Also my answer to types (just replace the Union Hall with TreeHugger Hall):

Eric Frei

My opening post is about the council changing rules midstream. Trees that were not protected that could have been cut down got protected.

If you see that as professional conduct then you need to see a shrink.

A few years back if say a rural block had a SLT on it we could go through and cut down smaller trees that were not protected by the SLT VPO.

Now the council says you HAVE TO submit a form regardless, then when you do they whack another VPO like SNV to stop you cutting the little trees. You consider that fair?

I wonder if the council would have the gall to try to fine you if you went ahead and cut the little ones down? I doubt it, it would go before a court and you'd show the judge that none of the larger protected trees were touched. I more so now refer people to lawyers because the council is an untrustworthy quagmire of people running their own personal agendas.

Land with trees on it these days is harder to sell and worth less. The other day I drove through an estate, only 2 blocks left out of maybe 30 .... yep, both blocks had VPO gum trees on them, blocks were perhaps 550m2. People want to buy a block and house not a tree. Developers and town planning need to think it out better, sure save trees but give them appropriate room, more parks I'd say.

__________________

The Tree Whisperer

OK So this one has opened up a whole can of worms and a few old wounds by the sounds of things. I have several things to say 1) Firstly as professional arborists are we really going to condone or start to promote the ILLEGAL POISONING of TREES especially protected trees I Mean come on this must be a joke no real self respecting arborist who values his professional reputation would post this comment Would they? really?

2) Ekka my reply was not about the issue it was about the critiscism and generalisation that council tree workers are gutless cowards that hide behind their desks. "Originally Posted by treekiwi View Post
Dont get me started on councils, you may of read some info on other threads I have written.... Doesnt surprise me at all, most council employees are spineless, thats why they work there, dish out the rules but pass the buck or hide behind the desk when questioned". this may be a case specific thing in this instance! IF SO SAY THAT cos their are a lot of good COUNCIL tree Officers who are very professional in what they do and are at the pioneering end of tree protection fighting with engineers and developers who have complete disregard about trees.

3) It doesnt really matter when the rules change the fact is they have changed. Yes I agree there should have been public consultation, and notification that this would happen. However in my 17 yrs experience in arboriculture if you tell people you are going to introduce tree protection in a months time the trees will be cut down before you get to that.

Back in the 70's we hardly had a National Park in Australia now look at it (at some stage the rules changed), most cities and towns in this country had no Idea what a TPO, or VMO, Or significant tree register meant until the late 80's early 90's and even now only a handful of small councils and major cities have them, but the rules had to change at some stage. Any policy has to have a start point, if that falls between purchasing land and redeveloping 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 yrs later well, thats just the way it is doesnt mean ALL COUNCIL OFFCIERS ARE FEEDING THEIR OWN AGENDAS OR ARE SPINELESS COWARDS MAKING RULES THEN HIDING BEHIND THEIR DESKS,

I mean lets face it times are changing we have to protect more trees. I am sure that in this case if the resident has a valid reason for removal. i.e. there is no other position he can position his shed/ driveway or the tree is a poor state of health he will get approval to remove. He may need to consider putting in a tree removal plan which includes a compensatory planting elsewhere on the block out of the way of his general building envelope (ratio of 3:1) is usually acceptable. Make it look like he is not just a red neck tree hater but actually has some idea of the value of environment (usually makes those gutless/spineless council workers come out from under their desks and actually try and work out a solution.

EKKA! sorry mate I really dont want to get into a personal discussion on this as I think slanging matches are both unprofessional and unhelpful for all readers. But modern Arboriculture has to be about protecting people (hazard identification and remediation), protecting trees (as 4970:2009)and all other tree protection statutes and policies, Protecting our environment including wildlife, and thinking outside our traditional boxes of "if a trees in the way cut it down another one will grow back" This tree in question has probably been there 30-40-50 yrs (just guessing) imagine the stored carbon, filtered pollutants, soil cohesion/ retention, wildlife population support and all the other things it has contributed over its life and now COUNCIL is considered the dirty B@#&ards for not letting it get cut down COME ON!!!!!!!!! It would be good if trained professionals would start to inform their clients of the value the trees have as opposed to just being client focused and siding with them on every occassion. AND thats all I have to say on that

trout

, Person buys property in your shire , no vpo,s - then tries to do the right thing and puts the effort in , to ask thier local authorities if its ok to remove these trees ( remember no vpo,s etc at this time ) . Well this person has done the right thing ( dont understand why people cut down tree,s without contacting thier local authorities ) then the local authorities with thier infinite wisdom , without consultation with the property owner (rate payer) or any independant consultation decide to protect said tree,s . Well the tree whisperer , that sounds really fair , just , right ,na just bloody wrong , even with the greening aus speech ! . the local authorities have placed these vpo ,s are the local authorities willing to insure said trees , also maintain said trees , the said authorities should also be willing to compensate this rate payer for any property value lost

Eric Frei

We have a thread titled Tree Nazis.

__________________

Davo The Terrible

I'm with Mr Tree Whisperer on this one - there are some pretty crazy statements in this thread!

Regarding Ekka's first post - from what I can gather, the fact that you had to fill out a form initially means that the trees were already protected by Council (quote - as the property has a piece of it affected (anything within 30m of the waterway) he needs to fill in a form to remove any trees.). So the fact that Council then went and put VPO's over the trees sounds like Council just raised the level of protection on these trees? Does that sound right? It all sounds legal and acceptable to me.

I think people need to remember that Council laws and policies are put in place by the people's ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES (Councillors & Mayor), So if you don't like Council laws or policies, get a petition together and submit it to your Councillor or something. I think you might find that the majority of the Australian metropolitan population supports increased tree protection though.

As far as JAYD's comment goes
"I'm a believer it's your land and you should be able to do what takes your fancy with it." I can see why you would say that. But I don't think you would be singing the same tune if your neighbour suddenly decided he wanted to build a 30 storey high rise next door, that left your house in permanent shade? Or decided to remove all the trees
When you think about it, most of Council's laws and policies are there for good reasons.

Eric Frei

The trees were not already protected, make sure you read was is written.

__________________

Jeff Darby

What's wrong with you using a comparison like that, talk about take my comment to the far extreme of it's meaning.

My neighbors only have small trees in their yards matter of fact I'm about to do a fence line trim shortly as two of their trees and one large vine (a weed) are growing over the fence line depriving me of around 1.5 meters of my usable space all the way along my fence.

At least this time when they are pruned back a trained arborist will be doing the pruning, not my neighbors grandkids who just broke branches off and called it pruning, they had a sit around talking about how good a job the were doing, where was the council in this situation!

__________________

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

stjawa

I'm amazed with your local councils in Queensland how they can slap on VPO's at will.It was once described as a Police state but does this really happen?

In Victoria as far as I am aware VPO's are state rules.If I want to find out the overlays on any property in the state,I can source the state gov website and print out every thing I need for that property.

If VPO,s are to be changed there is a fair amount of consultation first and it doesn't happen overnight.

I deal with properties that can have up to 10 overlays all with vegetation elements in them ie.erosion,historic,environmental,ridge line and so on.Then I have to deal with council reps who have to give rulings on these state laws.
I must admit that I do have some empathy for the reps from planning having to decipher these often badly written,broad ranging laws.

Davo The Terrible

Ekka, I don't mean to be a pain, but I'm a little confused by this - If the trees were not protected by Council, why did you have to fill out a form to ask Council's permission before you could cut them down? Isn't this what you were saying in your post? If this is the case - it sounds like the trees were already "protected" by Council in some form (thus you had to ask permission). If there was "no protection" initially, wouldn't the owner have been able to do anything he wanted with his trees without asking Council?

Eric Frei

Yes you are a pain in the ass.

Yes you cannot read including diagrams.

As stated already.



You work in council, obvious!

__________________

Davo The Terrible

hahaha, Gee Ekka - interesting response!

I thought my questions were innocent enough, but they obviously hit a raw nerve with you!

Jeff Darby

The fact of matter is all the information you needed was already posted in previous posts, but it would seem your comprehension is not up to scratch. This is always frustrating for the original poster to re-explain and point out facts you should have digested already.

__________________

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

Bruce Hopf

. Bruce.

__________________
McCulloch chain saws
1- Pro Mac 60, 1- Pro Mac 700, 2- Mac 10-10 Automatic's, 2- Mini Mac 30's, 2- Mac 110's,
2- Mini Mac 35's, 1- Mac 140 with Automatic Chain Sharpener,
1- Pro Mac 10-10, 1- Mac Cat, 2- Eager Beaver
2.0's, 1- Mac 1-10
Stihl chain saws
2- 044's, 2- 034's, 2- 024's, 1- 064, 1- 084,
Strunk chain saws
1- Busy Beaver, 1- SpeeDemon Special
Stand Back, I Have A Very Extreme Case of CAD (Chain Saw Addiction Disorder).

Davo The Terrible

I hear you fellas, but I still do not believe that the answer to my questions is in the previous posts - I am aware that Ekka said "the trees were not protected before" and I understand there were no VPO's on them beforehand - but VPO's are not the only type of tree protection Council's can have. And I therefore was saying that it sounds like there was already SOME FORM of protection on these trees to begin with. This being indicated by the fact that you had to ASK COUNCIL PERMISSION before you could cut them down.
Surely you can see what I'm trying to say?

Surely if there was no form of protection over these trees, the land owner could do what he wanted, when he wanted with them?

But this was not the case, a form had to be filled out, giving Council the "final say" on the tree's fate. From what I can understand, rather than respond to your form, Council placed VPO's over the trees - in effect refusing your request to remove them, and raising the level of protection over the them.

My whole point on this topic is - If there is no form of protection over a tree, the final say on its fate lies with the land owner, and they could do what they wanted, whenever they wanted with the tree. Seeing as this was not the case, I cannot see how you can say the trees were not protected at all to begin with.

Eric Frei

Davo, listen to me.

We have many different types of VPO's. The WAV one covers grass and weeds too! Obviously concerned about erosion and stuff washing into waterways.

What the council is saying is that even if you have trees unaffected by a current VPO (in this instance the WAV), you still have to put in paperwork regardless.

Clear and simple.

We put in the paperwork to cut trees that did not have VPO's on them, the council slammed new ones on .... that is filthy dirty behaviour.

I also wrote this because it was another example in the past.
My story and writings have been clear and explicit, hence why I am frustrated with you having to repeat myself over and over.

I might drop out there to that bloke if I have time, I remember where he lives. I wonder where it's up to now. I did tell him to get lawyers, meet with his local councillor etc. Maybe it paid off? I don't know, but I do know not to trust the council.

__________________

The Tree Whisperer

Just to re enter this debate For some reason this thread has become all personal I have been left a pretty nasty private message from some poster who I wont mention cos they know who they are stating that my employers a re dirty and the 'trees that i must know about' kind of crap. Firstly I do not work for BCC so to write that is just dumb secondly no body has even seemed to address my posts or even note that in most cases these type of protections are state or federally legislated and in some cases they are not aware of the existence of these veg communities until some one puts in a request they inspect and go aahh actually this is a Blah Blah Blah. In these case they do not require consultation nor permission as they are set by the state or federal scientific communities.

Seems like this thread has become a personal tete a tete between private contractor and local gov, stat authorities. Just doesnt sound right to me. If you guys dont like it then change the legislation. write to your local memebers your federal members whatever. the whole reason I entered my first post was to reply to comments about coward council workers hiding behind desks, as just being a poor comment.

I mean local gov reps dont like evrything some so called tree professionals do either like continually lop/top trees just cause the clients wants it, or write outlandish so called arborist reports, that are client focused so they gett he job to remove it. There are always 2 sides to everything. I simply object to the personal remarks and generalisations in the first few posts. SO I AM OUT OF THIS THREAD. That is all I have to say. AND EKKA JUST A PERSONAL NOTE I TRULY HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR YOU AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE but making personal vindictive and emotional comments just lowers that. Come on everyone how is this professional discussion. remember there are other people out there reading these

Eric Frei

There were no VPO's period, at all, then they slammed new ones on.

Do you think I am not sick of having to repeat myself? That's what goes on here, a constant barrage of excuses that do not exist.

Funny thing though, two properties down there is about 10 dead gum trees now, I'd say the word is out not to ask council and poison away, if the trees are not protected then the owner can poison them, then they can remove a hazard.

See what happens, people will do all they can to get their own way, and the tree poisonings a few houses down is not illegal as the trees are not protected, but sure as eggs now the owners are not taking risks and killing them first.

And how many more elsewhere, how many read this and wonder ... I better kill my tree now before some tree hugger protects it.

__________________

The Tree Whisperer

SO Not sure EKKA what you are saying here Oh and please dont repeat yourself as I know you are too great to have to do that for the lower ranked species. There VERY well may not have been a VPO or WAV nor a TPO or a VMO but what about an LEP what about an EEC.You complain about having to repeat yourself yet you do the same to others as you fail to answer or address what is said in each post. and if you dont like repeating yourself the JUST DONT!!!!!! I know your the administrator but you dont have to write to every post!!!!!

Any how basically understand this from someone who has extensive experience in local government arboricultural and environmental planning activities. THEY COULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS UNLESS THERE WAS CLEAR POLICY OR LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWED THEM TOO!!!!!! NO council tree or environmental officer can just place trees on privet land under protection unless there is sufficient legislation in place to allow that and if that is the case then CONSULTATION has already been done. In my local government area we have extensive amounts of both Littoral rainforest and Big Scrub rainforest. A couple of years ago the state scientific community declared these veg communities to be EEC's endangered ecological communities. Council had nothing to do with this and for the most part it was pushed by landholders and landcare groups. The scientific communities defintion of an EEc is 2 or more trees of different species that form a cojoining canopy from a listed species for the relevant community. Essentially this means if you owned a property on the coast that had a guioa semiglauca and a Cupaniopsis anacardioides in your back yard that form a joining canopy then you have an EEC, therefore under STATE (SEE THAT STATE not COUNCIL STATE) legislation these people will now require an ecologist to prepare a 7 part test of significance under part 5A of the NSW EPA, arborists are aparently not qualified to complete these reports and the average cost of an ecologist report is about $750 - $1500.00 and thats before they even get a consult arb report about condition of tree. SO NOT COUNCIL In fact it is a pain in the bum for council as to remove a tree in these types of veg communities on public land require council to do the same and increases costs for councils budgets as well. JUST TO REPEAT MYSELF COUNCIL CANNOT JUST DO THESE SORTS OF THINGS WITHOUT CORRECT LEGISLATION BEING IN PLACE TO JUSTIFY THEIR DECISIONS. HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY CONTACTED BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL AND ASKED UNDER WHAT LEGISLATION THEY IMPOSED THE WAV or VPO or whatever it was I guarantee they will have an answer that wont involve some cowardly council worker hiding behind his desk just making willy nilly decisions about which trees he is going to protect. and I guarantee that unless the proerties down the road have poisoned trees under a RAMA (Routine agricultural management activity) or similar they would be in breach of an LEP or similar legislation even where a VPO does not exist

Eric Frei

you are wrong

But do remember you are in NSW and I am in Queensland.

Brings to mind another case not so long ago.

Between the river and Wynnum road Norman Park a house had a large ficus tree. The tree was close to the brick front wall and damaging it, roots everywhere as expected. The tree did not have a VPO.

company won the quote to cut the tree down, to ensure all roots were dead and resprouting takes place the contractor poisoned the tree 1 week prior to removal.

They commenced the take down of the tree and before you knew it the BCCCC came out and asked them to stop work as they had complaints from neighbours. So they did, part of the tree cut down though. The BCCCC officer told them that regardless of the tree not being protected the council had the right, based on complaints, to re-evaluate the protection status on the tree. The officer said that council has the power to protect any tree especially if public push the issue. So the crew had to leave while council deliberated.

The contractors told the council the tree would die anyway as they had poisoned it, they showed them the chainsaw marks where they had ring barked and poisoned. The officer was concerned about that but as the tree was not protected little he could do. The contractor exlained why they poisoned, pretty legitimate reason.

The tree died, months passed and it was becoming an eyesore. After perhaps 4 months the approval was granted to remove the tree..... but I doubt it would have been allowed unless it was dead.

I have been on development sites with trees clearly marked for removal and holding the plans. I pointed at a marked euc and confirmed indefinitely goes, "yes, that goes". Then 3 days later council races out and stops the clearing of that particular tree. Had the clearing contractor worked the site the other way around it would have been gone already. The council said they had a few complaints and people wanted that specific tree spared, so another 180 degree turn on approved plans at the spur of the moment.

That meant re-engineering the road, dropping to 3 lanes in stead of the 4 that were at the entry to the estate. I had to return to do a root cut and treatment for the road.

These things happen, and they happen too easily at the drop of a hat. Not all developers are bad you know, some I work with are excellent and do plenty of preliminary work to know what stays and what goes etc. They get agreement, all is fine then whammo, a change. So now with cases like this to talk about the clearing contractors strategy changes ... home in on the big trees first and get them on the deck fast.

__________________