Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request

Eric Frei · 19th June 2008, 09:52 PM

Worth watching this case if you can. I always have questioned the rationale behind these rules, 3m or closer to buildings or fences means do what you like but this one is 3.5m away.

The Hornsby Advocate | Hornsby Local News

Quote:

Tree law a tall order

Danielle Long

18Jun08

A BEROWRA family's bid to remove a massive blue gum about 3.5m from their house has prompted a review of Hornsby Council's tree preservation laws.

Under council regulations residents can remove a tree within 3m of their house without permission.

However if the tree is more than 3m away from the residence a council application must be lodged.

Renai Larkin's application to remove the 28m-high tree from the front yard of her Berowra home in Lonsdale Ave went before the council last week. The blue gum is 3.5m from her house.

The mother of two boys, Harrison, 4, and Hugh, 16 months, told the council her children could not play in the front yard because of regular falling branches.

"Our youngest son has epilepsy," Mrs Larkin said. "With his current medical condition and even without a neurological condition we cannot afford a branch to strike his head.

"We can't allow either of our sons to play in the front yard as we don't trust the tree.

"Even our immediate neighbours have complained about branches dropping from the tree.

"It's an adolescent tree and it still has a lot of time to grow."

Council staff had recommended Mrs Larkin's application be refused because the tree was assessed as "stable, healthy and of good form and vigour, making a significant contribution to the streetscape".

But councillors unanimously voted to defer the application to allow Mrs Larkin to obtain an arborist's report.

They also asked for a memo to be prepared by the council's environment division explaining the rationale behind the regulation's 3m exemption limit.

Cr Nan Horne said the 3m rule should be redressed.

"Just because a tree is 3m from a home it doesn't mean that its branches or its roots are," she said.

STORIES IN THIS SECTION:

Sean Freeman · 19th June 2008, 10:09 PM

Yep thats trees for you just waiting for the chance...then bam!....the media always willing to present a balanced informed perspective

Eric Frei · 8th July 2008, 04:52 PM

I think when you look at Dr K Coder's chart of CRZ you'll see that the 3m rule accomodates trees up to trunk diameters of 1m.

So likely an assumption is that trees within 3m of buildings etc may ....

1/ Suffer root issues destabilizing them.
2/ Encroach upon neighbours land for CRZ and TPZ when near a fenceline.

Seems a rational argument however each tree should still be assessed on it's own merits, for example, a 0.3m DBH tree only has a 2.2m CRZ and can be closer etc.

wattie · 8th July 2008, 06:07 PM

I read with interest the post re the gum tree, firstly I was shock to think that a tree with what looked to be quite a small stem would be that tall.

Interesting how your tpo system differs from ours, if a tree is covered by a tpo here then it does not matter where it is standing, could be 1mt away and an application would have to be made the only works which can be carried out without consent would be , dead and dying branches or if it was considered dangerous but that a bit of a gray area or if was completely dead.

However we as a company would still inform the local council and give them five days notice of inpending works, which i think would give them time to have a quick look and also amend they records.

We also have conservation areas which all trees are covered in an area if they have a trunk/stem above 150mm at 1.5mts above ground level. For this we would need to apply and the council then they have eight weeks to desided if we can carry out the works / or if they would like us to change the works or refuse the works, however the only way they can stop you doing the works is to then put a tpo on the tree.

When we apply we have to have good reason, site plans and photos.

So hope that gives ypu some idea how much our goverment / councils love a bit of paperwork!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards to all.

Wattie

Done it · 8th July 2008, 09:31 PM

They can get tall in gulleys around here. I cleaned up a fallen Blackbutt once, not much thicker than that, [it was growing on a creek bank and went over in a big storm] it was 150'/45m ground level to top.

Most councils around here have a similar rule to yours, the area I do most work is: within 5 meters it has to be less than 500mm @ 1m or you need to apply.

I'm not sure about Hornsby, I don't do much over there now but they have a good tree policy. No spikes except for total removal, is one.

Going by the bricks in that pic that tree was there long before the house, so I'd say they couldn't cut it down when building, so are now trying again.

It never ceaces to amaze me why people want to live in areas like that if they don't want trees, that little suburb, it's Berowra Heights is totally surrounded by National Parks.

gavin160 · 10th July 2008, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wattie

I read with interest the post re the gum tree, firstly I was shock to think that a tree with what looked to be quite a small stem would be that tall.

Interesting how your tpo system differs from ours, if a tree is covered by a tpo here then it does not matter where it is standing, could be 1mt away and an application would have to be made the only works which can be carried out without consent would be , dead and dying branches or if it was considered dangerous but that a bit of a gray area or if was completely dead.

However we as a company would still inform the local council and give them five days notice of inpending works, which i think would give them time to have a quick look and also amend they records.

We also have conservation areas which all trees are covered in an area if they have a trunk/stem above 150mm at 1.5mts above ground level. For this we would need to apply and the council then they have eight weeks to desided if we can carry out the works / or if they would like us to change the works or refuse the works, however the only way they can stop you doing the works is to then put a tpo on the tree.

When we apply we have to have good reason, site plans and photos.

So hope that gives ypu some idea how much our goverment / councils love a bit of paperwork!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards to all.

Wattie

hi wattie
Gavin west sussex
hows work?
are you the boss or a grafter?

philinsydney · 26th December 2008, 09:30 AM

that's a nice tree: looks like E. saligna or E. grandis
If it is the former, it is probably an original tree, but E. grandis are often planted and could easily obtain that size in 40-50 years.

Drouin Tree Service · 26th December 2008, 10:32 AM

I would cut it down,its still 3m not 4!!!

wattie · 13th January 2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gavin160

hi wattie
Gavin west sussex
hows work?
are you the boss or a grafter?

Hi Gavin,

Have not been on this forum since last july as I went on holiday and been very busy since.

Boss or Grafter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To be a boss think you would have to have years of graft behind you or how can you expect lads to graft for you if you dont know what it,s like.

I am a boss and a grafter been grafting in the arb world for 30 years and had my own company for near on 25years this year. Not on the tools as much theses day but still grafter but in a different way, if fact its a dam site harder in lots of ways.

Got good little company as I have scaled down a year and half ago and its going great.

How about you Grafter or Grafter( if you know what I mean.

Regards

Kev.

Eric Frei · 11th March 2010, 11:05 PM

In the Mt Cootha Botanic gardens here they shut off the paths through the bunya trees this time of year.

Going nutty over Hornsby’s killer falling fruit - Local News - News | Hornsby & Upper North Shore Advocate

Quote:

11 Feb 10 @ 03:55pm by Julie Huffer

A HORNSBY homeowner is pleading with the council to remove two heritage-listed trees from his property after bowling ball-sized fruit crashed through his roof and into his loungeroom.

Ethel St resident Robbie Gers was feeding his six-month-old baby on Friday when a huge cone-shaped nut from one of the bunya trees fell from a height of more than 20m, ripping through roof tiles and plasterboard.

The 7kg cone landed on the floor of the loungeroom, narrowly missing Mr Gers and his daughter, Zara.

“She got such a fright and I got such a fright,” he said.

“My wife was in a state because she could have been killed.”

Mr Gers said about 15 of the huge cones had fallen on and around the house, as well as heavy branches from the trees, which were a traditional source of food for Aborigines.

This was not the first time the fruit had damaged property.

“About a year ago, the fruit fell on the bonnet of my car and another car that was parked in the street, causing significant damage,” said Mr Gers, who bought the house less than three years ago.

“The branches have also brought down powerlines.”

When the family contacted Hornsby Council last year, they were told they would have to pay for the trees to be denutted.

But when one quote came in about $7000, the Gers shied away.

This week, the council again stood firm.

A spokesman said removal of the trees would dramatically change the look of the area and denutting them was Mr Gers’ responsibility.

“Bunya trees can be safely managed through regular maintenance by an arborist and the maintenance of these trees is the responsibility of individual property owners,” the spokesman said.

“Council is assisting the resident in trying to find an arborist to remove any remaining bunya cones from the tree and make it safe.”

He said the bunya trees were listed as a heritage item on the Hornsby Shire local environmental plan 1994, were healthy and estimated to be 80-100 years old.

Bunya banter: It’s man vs tree - and it’s nuts! - Local News - News | Hornsby & Upper North Shore Advocate

Quote:

17 Feb 10 @ 03:02pm by STEVE GRAHAM

ONLINE comments received in the past week show readers went nutty for our front-page report about a protected bunya tree at Hornsby - and its potentially harmful falling fruit.

Some readers suggested it was ridiculous for the authorities to protect a tree from lopping when it was dropping 7kg fruit through the ceiling of Ethel St resident Robbie Gers’ house. Others said the tree should be de-nutted at the cost of the Gers as they bought a property with the tree on it. Read our report, HERE

Some quite passionately stated ratepayers should not have to fork out to fix what was described as a unique situation.

Doug Merrick wrote (online at Hornsby & Upper North Shore Advocate newspapers Sydney news, sport, events, gig guide, groups | whereilive) “How typical. More concern for a tree than for the welfare of people - even infants. This reminds me of the tragedy near Wollongong where a man who (wanted) to remove or lop a large eucalypt near his home, fearing injury to someone, was killed by a falling branch from that tree.”

Peter Tuckwell wrote: “If (the Gers) purchased their home three years ago, surely they would have been made fully aware of the heritage listing on their purchase as well as the expected lifecycle of bunya pines ... surely it was their responsibility to ensure they understand the implications of that heritage listing.”

Mark Hayes had a different view: “I’m a company director, responsible for the people I employ. If one of those individuals were injured or killed I would be in serious trouble - with potentially a jail term ... I am angry that these same conditions do not apply to (those) who run this council”.

Anne Banfield said she empathised with the Gers: “I feel for the family. These trees are dangerous and should never be planted in a residential area. There are bunyas in Sydney that are fenced off to protect the public.”

Mrs G.Banfield wrote: “While Hornsby Council is acting in a responsible manner assisting the Ger family to remove the remaining cones, this issue will be ongoing ... bunyas should be declared dangerous trees.”

trout · 12th March 2010, 07:42 PM

ekka have u chatted hornsby c ? surely they have to responsible for any insurance claims , future deconing ,pruning - after all ! they listed it , not the resident . ( I realise trees need to be protected , but at what cost ) . just wondering what a legal outcome whould be if somebody was struck by a 7kg silent bomb , are there any precidents ?

Eric Frei · 12th March 2010, 08:27 PM

Most councils wont have any opinions of their own anymore and get "consultants" in for their "independent" opinion to shift blame and liability away from them.

There was a case in the NSW enviro court where Judy Fakes said denut a Bunya tree .... like to see her do it without an EWP. The rights of vegetation seems to be exceeding the rights to safety and common sense.

Trees are a little like real estate, location, location and location matter a lot. It's very comforting from the office of a tax payers funded workplace (council) to enforce rules upon others that have considerable cost. Sure you can say he chose to live there and should have considered the tree but ultimately he is not the law maker is he?

The council make the laws that force the hazard to exist in this instance without an appropriate way of ensuring the abatement of that hazard. What next, councils allowing people to buy condemned buildings to live in?

When councils in some pseudo fascist mentality compel other to live with high risk and cost of their internal idyllic green dream they do become liable, and in this day and age getting into any house is a big deal down under so take what you can get with large mortgages is what many do.

CPT · 18th March 2010, 11:13 PM

I denuted that bunya this year. the guy built on an empty section under the bunya that had been there for over 50 years. still managed to have enough room for a pool and lawn but wanted his house directly under the bunya.
thats one way to try to remove a tree!

Eric Frei · 18th March 2010, 11:17 PM

If that is the case who let him build there?

Council?

Who is the idiot party?

Council!

.... but it does say he bought the place 3 years ago so are you sure? It might be the previous owner built not this guy, regardless .... some "official" allowed the house and tree to share the same area.

Eric Frei · 12th August 2010, 07:31 PM

Some common sense finally prevailed on the Bunya tree.

Family 'bombed' by falling 7kg nut finally get permission to lop tree - Council - News - Hornsby & Upper North Shore Advocate

Quote:

11 Aug 10

COSTLY damage and safety concerns will finally come to an end for Hornsby homeowners Robbie and Koran Gers, who received Hornsby Council approval to remove two heritage-listed bunya pine trees from their property.

The homeowners successfully pleaded with Hornsby Council at its August 4 planning meeting, stating the risk of danger to family and residents was simply too great to ignore.

“We appreciate the heritage value of the trees,’’ said Robbie Gers. “However, safety to humans, especially our children, has to come first.”

Greens candidate for Berowra Toni Wright-Turner said the decision by the council, including two local Greens councillors, was difficult but necessary.

“It is always hard to loose such beautiful iconic trees, real forest giants, and this decision was not an easy one,” she said. “However, with the council caveat that this decision does not set a precedent for all tree removal applications, which will need to be considered, like this, individually, and that these trees will be replaced with appropriate native trees, this was unfortunately the only solution this time.”

The trees, estimated between 80-100 years old on the Gers property, produce enormous cones. One 7kg cone nut ripped through the Gers’ roof and narrowly missed their daughter, Zara.

“A couple of days later another nut fell and we had extensive water damage from heavy rain,” said Mr Gers, adding their cars have also been damaged and power lines downed.

The Gers were never warned about the danger prior to purchasing their home.

“If we had known the trees were capable of causing such damage, or that they would have been so expensive to maintain, we would have never have bought the property,” said Mr Gers. The Gers said they looked into other solutions, including denutting the trees.

“We could not find anyone who was willing to take on the job everyone we phoned already knew about the trees and did not want to touch them.”

The Gers plan to replace the bunya pine trees, which are likely be removed within the next month or two, with native trees.

Eric Frei · 12th August 2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPT

I denuted that bunya this year. the guy built on an empty section under the bunya that had been there for over 50 years. still managed to have enough room for a pool and lawn but wanted his house directly under the bunya.
thats one way to try to remove a tree!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

If that is the case who let him build there?

Council?

Who is the idiot party?

Council!

.... but it does say he bought the place 3 years ago so are you sure? It might be the previous owner built not this guy, regardless .... some "official" allowed the house and tree to share the same area.

You are definately wrong CPT.

An aerial shot shows no pool. He is on a corner block, corner Ethel street and Gladstone road.

The guy said he couldn't get anyone to denut the trees too, which means you didn't denut them.

Hard-as-Stihl · 15th February 2011, 09:23 PM

damn!....you aussies have MASSIVE trees!!! that is proper scary! imagine one of those comming down on you when your climbing up!!!.

CPT · 16th February 2011, 08:44 AM

Hi Eric
I was referring to the bunya tree that Judy Fakes ruled on in Wahroonga. I denutted it again this year, took out about 130 odd.
Sorry for the confusion, I was replying to the Fakes comment.
Cheers

19th June 2008, 10:09 PM	#2
Sean Freeman Monument Status Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Townsville Nth Queensland & Gold Coast Sth Queensland Posts: 1,985	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request Yep thats trees for you just waiting for the chance...then bam!....the media always willing to present a balanced informed perspective

8th July 2008, 04:52 PM	#3
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request I think when you look at Dr K Coder's chart of CRZ you'll see that the 3m rule accomodates trees up to trunk diameters of 1m. So likely an assumption is that trees within 3m of buildings etc may .... 1/ Suffer root issues destabilizing them. 2/ Encroach upon neighbours land for CRZ and TPZ when near a fenceline. Seems a rational argument however each tree should still be assessed on it's own merits, for example, a 0.3m DBH tree only has a 2.2m CRZ and can be closer etc. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

8th July 2008, 06:07 PM	#4
wattie Sappling Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Kent, South East England UK Posts: 5	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request I read with interest the post re the gum tree, firstly I was shock to think that a tree with what looked to be quite a small stem would be that tall. Interesting how your tpo system differs from ours, if a tree is covered by a tpo here then it does not matter where it is standing, could be 1mt away and an application would have to be made the only works which can be carried out without consent would be , dead and dying branches or if it was considered dangerous but that a bit of a gray area or if was completely dead. However we as a company would still inform the local council and give them five days notice of inpending works, which i think would give them time to have a quick look and also amend they records. We also have conservation areas which all trees are covered in an area if they have a trunk/stem above 150mm at 1.5mts above ground level. For this we would need to apply and the council then they have eight weeks to desided if we can carry out the works / or if they would like us to change the works or refuse the works, however the only way they can stop you doing the works is to then put a tpo on the tree. When we apply we have to have good reason, site plans and photos. So hope that gives ypu some idea how much our goverment / councils love a bit of paperwork!!!!!!!!!!!! Regards to all. Wattie

8th July 2008, 09:31 PM	#5
Done it Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Australia. Posts: 784	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request They can get tall in gulleys around here. I cleaned up a fallen Blackbutt once, not much thicker than that, [it was growing on a creek bank and went over in a big storm] it was 150'/45m ground level to top. Most councils around here have a similar rule to yours, the area I do most work is: within 5 meters it has to be less than 500mm @ 1m or you need to apply. I'm not sure about Hornsby, I don't do much over there now but they have a good tree policy. No spikes except for total removal, is one. Going by the bricks in that pic that tree was there long before the house, so I'd say they couldn't cut it down when building, so are now trying again. It never ceaces to amaze me why people want to live in areas like that if they don't want trees, that little suburb, it's Berowra Heights is totally surrounded by National Parks.

26th December 2008, 09:30 AM	#7
philinsydney Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 110	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request that's a nice tree: looks like E. saligna or E. grandis If it is the former, it is probably an original tree, but E. grandis are often planted and could easily obtain that size in 40-50 years.

26th December 2008, 10:32 AM	#8
Drouin Tree Service Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 1,697	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request I would cut it down,its still 3m not 4!!! __________________ Drouin Tree Services \| Excavator Hire - Drouin and SE Gippsland \| Landclearing Melbourne

12th March 2010, 07:42 PM	#11
trout Former Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: aus Posts: 29	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request ekka have u chatted hornsby c ? surely they have to responsible for any insurance claims , future deconing ,pruning - after all ! they listed it , not the resident . ( I realise trees need to be protected , but at what cost ) . just wondering what a legal outcome whould be if somebody was struck by a 7kg silent bomb , are there any precidents ?

12th March 2010, 08:27 PM	#12
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request Most councils wont have any opinions of their own anymore and get "consultants" in for their "independent" opinion to shift blame and liability away from them. There was a case in the NSW enviro court where Judy Fakes said denut a Bunya tree .... like to see her do it without an EWP. The rights of vegetation seems to be exceeding the rights to safety and common sense. Trees are a little like real estate, location, location and location matter a lot. It's very comforting from the office of a tax payers funded workplace (council) to enforce rules upon others that have considerable cost. Sure you can say he chose to live there and should have considered the tree but ultimately he is not the law maker is he? The council make the laws that force the hazard to exist in this instance without an appropriate way of ensuring the abatement of that hazard. What next, councils allowing people to buy condemned buildings to live in? When councils in some pseudo fascist mentality compel other to live with high risk and cost of their internal idyllic green dream they do become liable, and in this day and age getting into any house is a big deal down under so take what you can get with large mortgages is what many do. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

18th March 2010, 11:13 PM	#13
CPT I'm new here so be nice Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 4	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request I denuted that bunya this year. the guy built on an empty section under the bunya that had been there for over 50 years. still managed to have enough room for a pool and lawn but wanted his house directly under the bunya. thats one way to try to remove a tree!

18th March 2010, 11:17 PM	#14
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,820	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request If that is the case who let him build there? Council? Who is the idiot party? Council! .... but it does say he bought the place 3 years ago so are you sure? It might be the previous owner built not this guy, regardless .... some "official" allowed the house and tree to share the same area. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

15th February 2011, 09:23 PM	#17
Hard-as-Stihl Mature tree Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: maui, hawaii Posts: 267	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request damn!....you aussies have MASSIVE trees!!! that is proper scary! imagine one of those comming down on you when your climbing up!!!.

16th February 2011, 08:44 AM	#18
CPT I'm new here so be nice Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 4	Re: Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request Hi Eric I was referring to the bunya tree that Judy Fakes ruled on in Wahroonga. I denutted it again this year, took out about 130 odd. Sorry for the confusion, I was replying to the Fakes comment. Cheers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode