How much is fine for tree removal

Therrin

....I dont see any pictures. Try again?

Jeff Darby

Look again with you glasses on..!..lol

__________________

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

TrevMcRev

It is a largish tree, in close quarters to the unit.

Looks to have good basic structure from what is visible in the pics.
Certainly the risk of canopy branch failures could be reduced with some selective reduction pruning to reduce end weight on some over-extended major lateral branches.

This however doesn't address any possible root damage issues with the construction of the rear unit/s.

It looks like an older '50s house at the front with maybe '80s units at the rear, correct?

If so, and the tree was there at the time, which i assume it was, then the mistake really was with council & developers retaining so close to the proposed new construction & expecting it to be ok to be there safely forever.

Hard to say from only photos whether it should stay or not.

You should invest in a good consulting arborist to assess & report on the tree.

Their findings, either way, may put you at rest if your fears are a little bit of an over reaction due to not knowing what you dont know about arboriculture and are really just based on "size=fear" or it could be that there are some very valid reasons that can be assessed & documented to support your argument for removal.

Eric Frei

Looks to me to be a spotty gum (Corymbia maculata).

From the pics I think your back fence sits atop a retaining wall, what is the difference between your ground level and you back neighbours ground level?

So, you are in Melbourne eh, distinct seasons means growth rings can be used to determine tree age. Correlate that to age of houses and units and retaining wall.

Tree is leaning toward your house (also opposite side of assumed retaining wall).

What if there is insufficient soil to anchor that tree due to the retaining wall? I mean we already have an unfavourable lean.

What if original ground level was your neighbours side and the tree has been "filled" your side? That root flare looks suspiscious to me, could be adventitious roots feeding that tree but anchoring roots rotted??

I would be doing some research if I were you, find original maps and gradients, size of existing vegetation prior to development.

__________________

kieren

Recently a woman was killed from a limb falling from a significant Eucalyptus camaldulensis the limb was huge and it fell on to her car and crushed her. now the tree is a good specimen and has still many years left in it but it is next to a main road and will lose more branches in the future. so it should be removed! I love trees and hate to see them removed but human life comes first and if a tree with the discription like the one in gr1971 place was that close to my house i would want it cut down as well

jmcg.insight.gardens

looks like Eucalyptus tereticornis to me, commonly known as Forest Red Gum (Queensland Blue Gum), but this would be an educated guess without the capsules to properly identify it. They can live to about 200 years.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/ins/colle...img2/7-62b.jpg


regards Julie

Eric Frei

It's not Forest red gum that's for sure, we have tons around here and the darker mottling on the trunk is very different to pics shown. Also the pics appear to show the typical dimpling of spotty gums, Forest red gums are smooth.

__________________

Jeff Darby

At first glance I did think it was a spotty gum, Julie, tereticornis has a rusty redish look to bark, when I get home I will post a picture of one which is a remnant of the cumberland plains for you to see.

__________________

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

jmcg.insight.gardens

Thanks Ekka, your eyes are obviously better than mine. I still can't see the dimpling. But I,m sure your right. Yes it's a distinguishing feature.

Thanks JayD, any advice is helpful to me to hone my ID skills. I don't think that I will ever learn all the plants in the world, that's what makes it so interesting.

I'm familiar with both species, I'm look at a large E. tereticornis through my window when I sit at the desk. Yes it has a rusty appearance to the bark in parts. This one I have previously identified through the capsules. But I have noticed at certain times of the year the patches darken.

Still getting used to photo Identification, its so deceptive at times, pretty tricky. Surely one can only hazard an educated guess really as to what the species is until the capsules have been sighted.

I will mention that in the bad storms in Sydney and the Central Coast in 2007 a study ( can't quote on whom now,too long ago) was made of the most common falls of trees in high wind events and E. maculata was one on the list, along with E nicholii.

Do you think that in the case of E. maculata it would be due to a shallower root system? I have heard that opinion from a couple of Horticulturalists. How accurate would that observation be? I will only quote what I've checked to be factual.

E. nichollii seems to have brittle wood on the density scale, as I have seen a few limb drops over the years, but I'm interested in your opinion on why E. maculata is a high fall tree in a high wind event. Obviously there are many factors but there must be a reason why this particular species. Ive always been curious.

Regards Julie

Eric Frei

Colour out of a camera or video camera is different to what we see with the human eye.

Digital technology actually makes colours slightly different, most often more vibrant and brighter.

Eucs are tough for ID as they look so similar.

Also, recent research into ficus shows some similar issues where ficus have around 800 ssp!

__________________

jmcg.insight.gardens

cheers again

Now that is a fascinating Family, I came across an interesting link the other day.

Just the subdivisions are extensive.

Classification_of_Ficus

regards Julie

AWF

Hard to identify the gum without a close up of the leaves and fruit but I would suggest it is a maculata (spotted gum)..

Stuart Primrose

There is always the option of installing a restraint to prevent a limb which has failed to fall far enough to land on someone or their property, and with remedial pruning to take the weight off the over extended branch it may just work out ok.....or theres always the unpredictability of mother naturere who doesn't discriminate between huggers or loggers or mothers......

Stuart Primrose

I'd have to see his nuts!

GR1971

Well, it took over 2 months but I finally received a reply from the council regarding the amended landscape plan/tree removal and surprise, surprise it was rejected for the following reasons:

1. The proposed changes to the Landscape Plan, particularly the removal of the single Eucalyptus species, have not been found to meet with those provisions of the Maroondah PLanning Scheme which relate to canopy vegetation and landscaping in residential environments. Specifically the objectives of clauses 21.07-Image and Urban Design, 21.11-Environment and 21.12-Protection of Ridgelines are not met.

2. The proposed changes to the Landscape Plan, particularly the removal of the single Eucalyptus species, does not satisfy the policies or objectives set out in Clause 22.01-Canopy Vegetation Policy and clause 22.03 Maroondah Residential Character POlicy.

3. It is found that the tree subject to the proposed amendment to the Landscape Plan is highly significant and worthy of retention on its landscape merits. (what do they mean by highly significant? what is the definition of this?)

4. It is found that the tree subject to the proposed amendment to the Landscape Plan is arboriculturally suitable for retention.

5. It is found that the tree subject to the proposed amendment to the Landscape Plan presents an acceptable (low) level of risk, and these risks may be further mitigated through remedial pruning actions.

Notes:
The assessment of the tree's condition covers only those items examined at the time of inspection. The inspection is limited to a visual examination from the ground without dissection or excavation. There is no warranty or guarantee implied or expressed that the subject tree will sustain its condition as at the time of inspection. If the condition of the tree should change, it is recommended that a further detailed review should be carried out.


They go on to say that I may appeal against the refusal within 60 days and this has to be lodged with the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal and pay the relevant fees. Any appeal must state the grounds upon which it is based and must also be served on the Responsible Authority.

I don't really know where to go from here. I don't know if there is anything further I can do. I reckon I would be wasting my time (and money) appealing to VCAT. What do people think?

On another point, what are the rules regarding building/subdivisions? The council has a 3 metre exemption policy with it's tree removal policy meaning that if a tree is within 3 metres of a dwelling then no permit for removal is required. The exception to this is "unless the dwelling is part of a multi-unit or dual occupany development then a council permit is required". How stupid is this? What difference should this make if it is a dual occupancy development? Anyway my point is that if they have a 3 metre exemption rule, then why did they allow the rear unit behind me to be built there in the first place when it was so close to the tree. (My house was built in 1958. The block was subdivided and the rear unit built in 2001. I don't know when the tree was planted but I'm sure it was way earlier than 2001! Someone will probably have a rough idea by the photos I have previously uploaded?) Why would they approve this rear building knowing it was so close to this tree and knowing how large this tree would get?

Eric Frei

So did they come out and assess the tree, like for nothing?

Also, you never cleared up the back fence issue ... is there a retaining wall or not? Need to know if roots have been cut.

I often tell people who ring me that I cannot recommend removal if there's no bad defects. If the tree is protected, healthy, sound etc it stays. removal is considered the final option in the hazard abatement program.

It's rare, vary rare to suggest removal on a perfectly good tree, but it can happen in certain circumstances like the link below.

Landmark Tree Felled| Brisbane Council Blunder

__________________

glennak

Euc. nicholii are crap weak wood but included bark forks is the major problem.
As for Spotted gums they probably rate so badly because there are a lot of them planted. Most of these surveys are; look at trouble trees name then list in order. Similar results could be obtained by making a list of the most commonly planted trees. The South Australian list of trees that cause pipe damage is a list of the most common trees planted in Adelaide.
To be of any use these figures need to be modified to tree populations.

GR1971 Did you apply for this permit with an tree report from an Arborist? Or just say it's too big might drop branches etc etc? Without a proffesional opinion you are pritty much wasting your time unless there are very obvious reasons and you explain them well.

Davo The Terrible

If Maroondah Council is at all similar to some QLD Councils, the exclusion of multi-unit development from the 3 metre exemption rule could be because multi-unit developments usually have an approved landscape plan, while single occupancy developments do not. Ergo if you remove a tree that is identified to be retained on an approved landscape plan, you no longer comply with the approved landscape plan. This would be the reason why you were directed to submit an amended landscape plan.

Have you gotten a qualified arborist to have a look at the tree yet? If not, I would highly recommend this! The opinion of a qualified expert in this sort of field carries much greater weight than just the home occupiers opinion (no offence intended). On the flipside, if the arborist doesn't think there is a problem, it may assuade your fears a little.

jmcg.insight.gardens

Thanks Glennak,...........

yes that makes sense to me, E. maculata is a common tree in Sydney, it would make sense that this would affect the census, yes, that is a logical conclusion.

I've noticed the included bark forks in E. nicholii, but in that storm event it was gale force winds and the trees were uprooted. There was a huge amount of trees uprooted. I suppose that so many factors come into play that it could be any number of factors.

Thanks again, it was one of those question that I hadn't found a logical answer for, now I do.

regards Julie

glennak

When we had a lot of trees blown over in Melbourne we first had 3 or so days of heavy rain then the strong wind. So saturated ground was a major factor. Most of the fallen trees had other things like a path next to them, compacted ground, recent trenching etc. In the Fitzroy Gardens where many Elms were blown over Greg Moore went to look and said all of the fallen trees had compromised root systems and no tree in open lawn areas that were not interfered with fell.
So who was to blame the storm or the tree managers?

Davo The Terrible

It could possibly be Eucalyptus cladocalyx

Eric Frei

YOUR SAY: $40,000 fine for Bayswater North tree poisoning - Council - News - Maroondah Leader

__________________

Stuart Primrose

How mature were they? significant species? habitat trees? I wonder who did the evaluation

spb

Get yourself a proper arborist report written to support your case, you might want to make sure you are in the vegetation protection overlay as I believe they are in place in that council. Also check any planning conditions.

Eric Frei

No point appealing as got same answer, just more costs now.

Bayswater North company fined over poisoning trees - Local News - News - General - Maroondah Weekly

__________________

King koala

why is there a new house next to the tree were the backyard used to be?
or are the photos deceptive?

George Valentine

I don't thing that, isn't much a deceptive visual illusion mate, that brick building is just too damn close, period.

And I thing also Eric is on something very crucial about that back fence and ground level on the house bellow yours. It had to have some radical work on that retaining wall, regardless what they built it with, there is just too much soil missing at the base of the tree, on that fence side...!

I can't get over the reasons and the bullshit of an excuse,the council management gave you as a refusal to your application, just ridiculous...!

I would love to be able to see pics of where this tree hugger (xylem09) lives. I bettcha there are no large trees over their roof, and most probably, no trees nowhere within reach of their house, this has been the case in 99% of these "moron's"...!

Now, how long does anyone think that tree will stay alive, if council get some commons sense on their heads and allow this useless tree to be taken down before, "nature" (I mean, oops...!) does it for them...???

Cheers
George

Todd

Hello GR71,

I know this thread was a couple of years ago, but have you made any progress? I am in a similar situation myself, and wondered if your patience paid off.

Cheers.