Should councils (govt) assess private trees | poll | Vote Yes or No

Ekka · 22nd October 2008, 11:09 PM

You discover the tree in your yard is protected, and to do ANY works (removal or prune) you need to submit a form to council.

Some councils take it upon themselves to go to peoples homes (private property) to assess the trees.

Other councils simply ask for a suitably qualified arborist to write a report, some times they stipulate what has to be in that report.

There's a couple of threads that you should read.

Bayside Council |VIC|New Draft Tree Protection Policy

Open email to Gold Coast City Council Mayor

So, pretty straight forward, and it will provide feedback to the relevant councils.

Should councils assess private trees, yes or no, simple.

Ekka · 22nd October 2008, 11:13 PM

I voted no, because it's what I do for a living and am qualified to do so.

The council doesn't send some-one out to assess your plumbing etc but funny how in this tree business from unregulated hacks door knocking scum we miss out ... now we miss out again because council take away our consulting work that we went to college and studied for, why is that, why do we get the short end of the stick so often?

treeseer · 22nd October 2008, 11:26 PM

From here it seems a short step from tpo to assessment.

as long as the assessor is qualified...

Ekka · 22nd October 2008, 11:46 PM

Well, this is looking interesting.

I need to make the poll public so we can see who likes their jobs done by council. (But cannot)

Stuffed if I went to college so some council bloke does my job.

Galbee · 23rd October 2008, 07:18 AM

Ah yes but it is jobs for the boys when we are worn out from competeing with the hacks, we apply to become tree officers with the local auth

or is that just my retirement plan?

TrevMcRev · 23rd October 2008, 07:49 AM

I think there needs to be some governance over what happens to trees on private property.

And council are the body of people to do that. But their role should only be inspection for the purpose of approving or declining requested works by a homeowner or arborist.

For me the ideal scenario is an independant arborist inspects first, & writes the specification for works. Then a permit application is made. Then a council officer with arb knowledge inspects to see if the request is appropriate. The council should be guided by, and support the recommendations of the independant arborist.

Where it goes wrong is when someone with an ArbEgo gets on a power trip and sees their role as the arb consultant to the entire community.

It's an interesting position of power to have. You can tell people to do the most wonderfully, arboriculturally correct things, which is great if the only thing in the world that mattered was the holy goodness of trees.

The problem there is the trees being manged by them are still in the real world, co-existing with human life close by, often even beneath their canopies for one of our very most basic human needs, shelter, sometimes not by choice due to location of a bedroom in relation to a neighbours overhanging tree and be powerless to do anything about it.

Mr. CouncilArbs suggestion might be thin canopy by 5%.

Qualified Arborists shouldn't be denied the ability to implement pruning works that conform to Aust Standards.

Ps. I didnt vote as the choice is too black or white. My answer is grey!

treeseer · 23rd October 2008, 08:42 AM

Didn't mean to cut you out of anything Eric; I did not know the council would stay in-house with that. Makes no sense to me.

In other countries (not usa) councils have lists of qualified arbs to use.

Sean Freeman · 23rd October 2008, 08:53 AM

Councils here do not have the tree officers to complete their existing workloads I very much doubt that givent he way the economy is currently running any of them will ever be in a position to do more than visit the most contentious and troublesome tree sites.

Quintrex · 23rd October 2008, 07:01 PM

I agree with Trev. Without some official control, ther would br wholesale tree removal for views and leaves on lawns IMO. However, the current system in most Sydney LGA's could do with a tune up.

hanging from a rope · 6th February 2009, 07:50 AM

i think goverment should stay otta the tree biz,they tend to mess up everything they get involved with now they wanna play arborist...

treefeller · 6th February 2009, 10:52 AM

I have recently put in an applications for a Chestnut to be removed as it has severe bleeding canker, With recomendation for replanting. The tree has a tpo in place and the local authority are happy to have reports made by qualified arborists, the system usually takes about 6 weeks. as for the poll i voted no as the trees are on private property and providing that the arborist is fully qualified and experienced to carry out a full inspection why should the councils be involved

Ekka · 6th February 2009, 07:55 PM

I believe governments are there to govern, not do our jobs.

But in saying that for them to govern our industry or any other it means they need to have experts in certain fields so they dont get sucked in to a load of Pop E. Cock.

But for them to go out and assess trees means they're taking my job, a monopoly and funded by a tax system ... how the fug do I compete against that and the 9 day fortnight, 15% super, 4 weeks annual leave with loading, 10 full days and 10 half days sick leave, bereavement leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, paid public holidays, overtime loading, height loading, wet weather loading etc etc etc ... all courtesy of taxes!

hanging from a rope · 7th February 2009, 01:13 AM

i know i commented already, just imagine if you had to summit aplications for not only public works tree related but private works,an by the time any town official got around to oking or understanding the jobs in question,well you might as well sell your company an find a new 9-5 gig cuss crediters dont care what your waiting on they want there cash,a couple of towns in nothern westchester new york do that already,i had a client file to remove a dieing elm the town guy came out said no the tree's fine rejected the aplication, in a months time the elm was totaly shut down a heavy storm came through the tree took out half the house,thank god the the bedrooms were located on they other end,the homeowners went after the town an won,an it turns out the town tree inspecter was not even a real arborist yes he took the the written test,but never spent any time in the field..............

Q.Q. · 10th February 2009, 06:04 PM

Hmm how would you compete with all that government funded money Ekka.
Hate to say, but I know the feeling and it sucks.

I have to say no, you guy's did it all of of your own backs and payed for it all.Why wouldn't the council just get you guy's to acess the tree's and give you some more work?.
I sometimes wounder about that sort of stuff out here, I really wish I could get properly qualified so I could give the right info.
Yep I have seen the council work out here,they do enough just get the job done, I wounder what the reports would be like?.
Mabie I'm going about this the wrong way, I applie for a council position and get them the pay for all the training

Ekka · 10th February 2009, 07:48 PM

I got something on the boil mate... be patient.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Q.Q. · 10th February 2009, 10:28 PM

Women would disagree with you there mate

treekiwi · 11th February 2009, 06:31 PM

Now heres a bit of a shake up

. Our new Leader John Key has decided that he will shake up the RMA or resource management act which basically governs the way district councils protect trees.

He has now decided to target amongst other things the cancellation of blanket tree protection:

Inserting provisions into the RMA that remove the ability for blanket tree protection rules to be imposed in urban areas. These rules generate more than 4000 resource consent applications annually.

Scoop: Government Reform of the Resource Management Act

This basically means that tree protection can no longer be put in the council district plan... What does this mean for the private trees of New Zealand????

Time will tell, hopefully this can be resolved and streamlined and a common tree protection law passed. Surely it cant got backwards?????

Ekka · 11th February 2009, 10:34 PM

That sounds interesting, lets wait and see what happens.

Therrin · 7th July 2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

I voted no, because it's what I do for a living and am qualified to do so.

The council doesn't send some-one out to assess your plumbing etc but funny how in this tree business from unregulated hacks door knocking scum we miss out ... now we miss out again because council take away our consulting work that we went to college and studied for, why is that, why do we get the short end of the stick so often?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

Well, this is looking interesting.

I need to make the poll public so we can see who likes their jobs done by council. (But cannot)

Stuffed if I went to college so some council bloke does my job.

People's plumbing rarely falls on people and kills them.... the two issues dont have the same gravity to them.

As for college/qualification... what if the guy they sent out HAS all of your qualifications? Now Im just saying "what if", I'm not saying they do, and I know for a fact that most of them dont. (or...possibly all of them)

But what if they HAD qualified people?

The only reason I see for govt getting involved in privately owned trees is for items which have historical value of some sort. Otherwise I'd say no, its your tree, you do as you damn well please with it. I think the govt has some rights to look over the continuance of historic trees though.

Like...whats that tree that's really famous, ack... cant think of the name! The one outside the house where the people hid the Jews? Ann frank? yeah.
The "Ann Frank tree". If it was (or maybe it is, or was) private property and some bloke though "gee I dont like this tree here, Ima chop the sucker down" that'd have been a historical loss.

Do you have a problem with a PROPERLY CERTIFIED AND QUALIFIED govt person assessing the trees Ekka?

Apocalypsse · 7th July 2009, 09:23 PM

Council fail @ having properly certified arbor consultants. Every tree report ive seen done by a council has been soo dodgy it makes the maori's (sp) look like professionals.

Ekka · 7th July 2009, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Therrin

Do you have a problem with a PROPERLY CERTIFIED AND QUALIFIED govt person assessing the trees Ekka?

Yes, that is what this whole thread is about. Regardless of the council bloke's qualifications consulting arborists are missing out on work if councils are assessing the trees.

We are talking about trees on private property, owned by individuals not govt. Most councils ask for a tree report, they can also ask for more diagnosis or information.

The issue is that at the bottom end of the market where the hacks hang out there's no regulation and at the top end where trees are protected they do the inspections ... WTF sort of system is that? Get screwed over by hacks on one end or govt on the other.

Therrin · 8th July 2009, 12:34 AM

Who's to say that the system and the way its set up should be catered to YOUR wishes?

Life isnt fair Ekka. So that's the way it is...ok. Are you gonna change it? Cuz anything short of a plan to do that is more like a pity party. "ahhhh, the system's set up against me, ahhh these wanks all get what Im supposed to get, ahhh why cant things be fair for Meeeee"

*gives a blank stare*

Ok its 6:30am, im going to bed.

windthrown · 8th July 2009, 06:55 AM

Around here (in Oregon and California, anyway) we have these designated Tree Cities. What a Tree City means varies from city to city. Some restrict street tree plantings to specific types of trees, and restrict any cutting or pruning of street trees without a permit. Other cities restrict what you can cut regardless of where any tree is on your property. Usually when trees are over 20 feet high they need a permit to be cut, and in some cases they need a permit to be pruned.

What I see as a result of these restrictions is far less cutting than should be done. Stands are not thinned right, and some very overly large trees and stands are becoming a problem. For example, we are on county land here and we can cut or prune any trees here that we want, w/o any permits. Even 120 foot redwoods, or 150 foot Doug firs. Now, go over 2 miles to the nearest city limits, and trees like this cannot be cut without a permit. Even a 20 foot tree cannot be cut w/o a permit there. Typically someone from the city comes along and evaluates the tree to be cut, then makes a recommendation. If the tree is dead or leaning or an obvious problem, they will issue a permit. If it is not, then you have to put a sign on the tree stating that there is a permit request to remove the tree. If there are any complaints about the tree being removed, usually the permit will be denied. If it is a street tree, a cutting permit will usually be denied.

Near here there are some city suburb neighborhood stands that are 60-80 years old. The Doug firs in them are 150-200 feet high. They will continue to grow higher and wider. If they are left as they are, the next big strom that comes through here like in 1962 will simply flatten them and cause a huge amount of housing damage. No one seems to remember the big storms here though, and they seem to love living in the big ass tree groves. In the county areas out here, people are allowed to cut and there are smaller and fewer tall trees. The stands are better, and for the most part the trees are in better shape. Also the risk from massive storm damage is far less.

So from my perspective living and working on trees around here, I believe that regardless of intention, permitting tree cutting just causes more problems over the long term due to overly restricted cutting. It is similar in private forest lands. The tree huggers see, they want to save all the existing trees. Dead or alive. Seeminly they do not want more trees, as clear cutting favors more boimass than old growth forsts do. Seemingly they do not want healthier trees, as old growth stands tend to have more decay and disease. Seemingly they do not even want to save the trees at all, as keeping massive stands of trees uncut just invites a wildfire to come in and burn them all down. Seeminly they even want to save the old dead trees in stands, for wildlife habitat. Some massive areas of beetle-killed pines in the west are being held up for logging by the environmentalists. That is what happened in San Diego. The pine stands died, and were just left there to 'rot' while they held up cutting in court. Meanwhile a massive fire whipped through there and burned them all down.

Certainly there are old forest stands of trees that need to be preserved. Just like in many neighborhoods, some trees should be preserved. However, it seems that of late around here, that translates to all the trees needing to be preserved. And as a result, nature will have its way. The trees around here will be blow down or burn down, or some insect or disease will come along and take care of the trees for us, becasue we are politically incapable of managing them ourselves.

Ekka · 8th July 2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Therrin

Who's to say that the system and the way its set up should be catered to YOUR wishes?

Life isnt fair Ekka. So that's the way it is...ok. Are you gonna change it? Cuz anything short of a plan to do that is more like a pity party. "ahhhh, the system's set up against me, ahhh these wanks all get what Im supposed to get, ahhh why cant things be fair for Meeeee"

*gives a blank stare*

Ok its 6:30am, im going to bed.

I am trying to change it, what are you doing? Shitting on those trying by the looks. The system isn't set up, it just happens to be, because like many things the problem tends to come first and the solution later. The catalyst for change, if justifiable (which it is as most councils don't assess and want reports), comes from discussion with those parties able to make a change. Bringing these matters before fellow peers who may understand and offer some input, assistance, guidance or opinion is what discussions forums are about.

Thanks for your help!

Ekka · 8th July 2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windthrown

Now, go over 2 miles to the nearest city limits, and trees like this cannot be cut without a permit. Even a 20 foot tree cannot be cut w/o a permit there. Typically someone from the city comes along and evaluates the tree to be cut, then makes a recommendation. If the tree is dead or leaning or an obvious problem, they will issue a permit. If it is not, then you have to put a sign on the tree stating that there is a permit request to remove the tree. If there are any complaints about the tree being removed, usually the permit will be denied. If it is a street tree, a cutting permit will usually be denied.

Interesting, tree removal based on complaints or lack of. So stick your nose in your neighbours affairs for your own cause.

Had a situation where a norfolk pine was not protected and people wanted to remove it. The neighbour who had no large trees rang council and complained, got a protection order put on the tree, owners now denied to cut it down.

Flip side:- Had a huge spotty gum near a fenceline, back neighbour wanted to near on cut the tree in half, had a meeting with both parties and and it was clear that regardless of any pruning or cabling the back neighbour wanted the tree gone. Advised my client to request the tree go under a protection order as a SLT (significant landscape tree) ... he did what he had to do and now the tree is protected.

Mr Spinny · 9th July 2009, 01:38 AM

I believe Councils shouldnt have the right to assess private trees. In my experience they dont take ownership of the job at hand and stay with the job card untill its finished, if I ran my buisness the way they do, I would be out of a job.

We have been trying to build on our own land now for 5 years now, and have seen many an estate go up around town. This is due to the bush on our land, we love the bush and is why we want to live there we only want to clear enough to build our residence no more..... out of 20 acres I think there would be enough space for a house.

Our main problem has been trying to get the planning done the correct and lawful way which has hindered us. If we had have done what a neighbour did 5 years ago and just send a dozer in without consulting we would have had a fine but would have been living in our own house by now.... there is no real justice in this.

DSE are consulting the council on one hand and I feel that they spent too much time researching greenpeace in college.

CFA are just trying to make sure everyone is safe - why these guys are getting sued from Black Saturday I dont know........ whos the first people you call when your in trouble.

This is the space where the body looking after the land owners interest should be. Which I feel should be the councils job.

Now what happens if these two bodys cant agree? CFA and DSE the whole thing goes into a loop, they sat down at our block for half a day and couldnt come to a conclusion because ones rules contradicted the other...

Council - wont do anything unless they have an agreement by these two bodys and dont make these guys mediate if they cant agree.
VCAT should not exist because the council cant take ownership of a job card.

In my opinion if someone cant do a job they get sacked or go out of buisness, thats what happens in the real world.....

Every year new rules eventuate and keep prolonging the building plan....Black Saturday has now hindered us for another year......or 5 - everyone in Marysville is ammune to the new building regulations, but people that have been planning it longer like us have to accomodate to new building laws that make it impossible to adhere to because the firesafe materials and inferstructure doest exist yet..... basically a bunch of laws that were thrown out there.... next stop $20,000 and the surpreme court....with still no guarentee of a win. We have already spent $5000 on an independant enviromental asseement which is basically a 60 page essay to say "damn there a lot of trees on this land".......and about to spend another $5000 on an independant assessment on the fire side of things which will say "damn trees and houses are still going to burn". This is still 90% of the people living in the bush.

I have lost faith.

If anyone is going through a similar thing I would like to know to get some people together for ways to combat the red tape and change some overdue laws.

windthrown · 9th July 2009, 08:10 AM

Well, land and building laws vary from state to state here in the US. And within states they vary on site location, county, city, and the region that the state is in, like along the Pacific, Atlantic or Gulf coasts, in the plains or Rockies, or in a drought or desert area. There are also specific issues with local geology, earthquakes, fire and hurricanes, as well as farming, irrigation and well rights, botanical assessments, etc. Then there are issues with electric utilities and easments, timber and mining rights, and other factors.

In this state of Oregon in 1972, they decided to come up with what is called the 'green line'. Outside the line, its agricultural zoning. If a land area is less than 100 acres, and there was no building on it or permit to build before 1972, then you cannot build anything on it. You can grow trees or farm it. That's it. If it is over 100 acres, then you can usually build ONE HOUSE on it. That's it. My ex has 105 acres, and she cannot build more than one house, and cannot develop the land, or use the water for irrigation, or sell off parcels of the land. She can grow trees, and must mitigate the invasive plant species like scotch broom, hawthorne and blackberries. She also has to burn the slash by law, or face fines if a lightening stike or other hazard causes a brush fire. Managing that size of a parcel was a full time job for me whan I lived there.

I used to think that building outside the green line was impossible. It is even harder inside the line, for opposite reasons. For example, I looked at a foreclosed half acre parcel a few weeks ago with a house that had been a rental for 20 yerars. It was a dump. The only way to make it work as an investment would be to tear the place down and build two nice houses on quarter acre lots. So I looked at the zoning, and saw the reason that it was still available and for cheap. MINIMUM building requirement was 9 units per acre. I would have to chop the place up into five tiny 4300 sq ft lots. But there was no way to do that. I asked about a variance to get it cut into 4 lots, 5,000 sq feet each. Oh, but then I would not be able to put in access that the fire department would approve of. They have to be able to get into all areas and turn a fire engine around. There was also the issue of piping in sewars, and water and utilities, and the rear neighbor having an easment to her property, and yadda yadda... to buy that place I could leave it as one house and maybe break even after fixing it up, or spend a lifetime in city hall and at the county planning commission getting permits and variances and all that. They want MAXIMUM density building inside the green line. No exceptions.

So that land will become an apartment complex or a condoplex. Or someone will buy it and build a single monster home on it. There is really nothing else that can be done, due to the local building and zoning laws. My ex is in a similar situation, and she will have her 105 acres, and nothing else can be done on that property either. No way to make money there on trees. That is a loser... farming is even harder to make any money at. Its funny here in Oregon, Drive along the green line in the outer areas of the cities and it is high density housing on one side of the road, and vast expanses of farming and trees on the other. There is no blending of land use here. This is the only state that has this radical of a building requirement. Also over time they just expand the green line to allow more high density building. The cities are like a cancer. High density housing swallows up all the new building areas. It also forces small unincorporated areas to not have any industry or ability to grow economically. No housing means no local labor. No local labor means no growth, and no economy. No economy means repressed areas in rural Oregon. Right now the unemployment rate in Portland is about 12%. In the rural areas of Oregon it is over 20%. Depression era numbers out there. By design. Its what they wanted in some grand scheme in 1972.

Oh yes, and if you are rich? Just buy a parcel and build on it anyway. Then pay all the fines, and you are good to go. A neighbor at my ex's did that a few years ago. He built this monster tudor mansion down there without any permits. They came out and filed all kinds of petitions and violations against him. He went to court, paid all the fines, and got a final permit on his house before I moved out last year. He had 20 acres I think it was. Money seems to pave the way to doing anything that you want. Worldwide.

Ekka · 9th July 2009, 09:51 AM

Mr Spinny,

I feel for you mate .... did you read this joke about red tape, quite accurate but funny.

CPT · 9th July 2009, 10:13 AM

I voted yes to this tread.

I do not think there are any similarities with plumbing or electrical work. I am at TAFE and plenty of the people who I have gone through with are Council Workers. Some of them who I know have completed Level iv are only in the tree crew.

I do not see them as hopeless retards who are stealing my work and getting paid for it by my tax money. I am sure that the perks of a normal job, such as super and holiday pay, seem good. If that is the case maybe the downside is they don't have their own business and therefore have limited earning potential compared to a business owner.

The main issue that I see here, and why I voted yes, is impartiality. My first job in the industry was with someone who was not very neutral when it came to tree assessments. He had a biased view as he also wanted the contracting work. This isn't a thread about consulting and contracting work so I wont go there.

The important role that qualified Council Workers have in Sydney is to be impartial. To be able to balance the owners needs, the tree's (every living thing surely deserves an impartial voice) and the greater community's needs. Sure there may be times when they get it wrong but I believe that that is part of the job. If they get it wrong you can challenge them, their say is not final, if they get wrong on most occasions they are incompetent and will be found out.

What I am getting at is that people are good, mostly, but I also know that money can make me think twice. As a member of the greater community and as a tree lover I am glad that there are qualified people there who can and should be impartial.

treekiwi · 9th July 2009, 03:52 PM

My opinion is in the middle.... At the end of this month changes are to be made to the Resource Management Act 1991. With a change of government, our new prime minister has decided to streamline councils and change parts of the RMA.
This particularly impacts our industry because part of this is the proposal to make it illegal for local authority to put general tree protection in their district plan. Up until now, the 3 main councils in Auckland have imposed a blanket tree protection which means that native trees over 6 m and 600mm dbh and exotic trees of 8m and 800mm dbh are protected from all pruning and root excavation except with a handsaw. This has meant that a large number of consultant arborists have been employed to liase with the council on behalf of the property owner and have build substancial livelyhoods on this as a result. In a way the council assessed the tree and asks the client for specific details or plans through a qualified arborist, so generating work.. I believe that this has lead to a greater awareness of trees for the public and a greater appreciation. Basically the decision is down to number crunching, 4000 tree consents are issued per year, a big amount of paper work i admit...

But what will happen when the protection goes? What about all the trees that were saved because of people wanting views or leaves in gutters??

On the flipside, my local council that i deal with alot has a different approach... the RMA outlines that councils should have some form of protection but doesnt specify WHAT... the majority of councils have none... My council charges $800!!! to look at a tree for removal unless you can prove it is dangerous or may cause injury, so this means that me, as a qualified arborist, get told by a council worker that Liquidambars 'do that' when i told them that I had a Liquidambar with a broken co-dominant stem that was heavily decayed and needed removal... But their plan says i can prune with a chainsaw and outlines no guidelines for pruning?? Just my two cents... it should be mandatory for Qualified arborists to access and make the decision....

22nd October 2008, 11:09 PM	#1
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 10,587	Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No You discover the tree in your yard is protected, and to do ANY works (removal or prune) you need to submit a form to council. Some councils take it upon themselves to go to peoples homes (private property) to assess the trees. Other councils simply ask for a suitably qualified arborist to write a report, some times they stipulate what has to be in that report. There's a couple of threads that you should read. Bayside Council \|VIC\|New Draft Tree Protection Policy Open email to Gold Coast City Council Mayor So, pretty straight forward, and it will provide feedback to the relevant councils. Should councils assess private trees, yes or no, simple. __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

22nd October 2008, 11:13 PM	#2
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 10,587	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No I voted no, because it's what I do for a living and am qualified to do so. The council doesn't send some-one out to assess your plumbing etc but funny how in this tree business from unregulated hacks door knocking scum we miss out ... now we miss out again because council take away our consulting work that we went to college and studied for, why is that, why do we get the short end of the stick so often? __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

22nd October 2008, 11:26 PM	#3
treeseer Former Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SE USA Posts: 811	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No From here it seems a short step from tpo to assessment. as long as the assessor is qualified...

22nd October 2008, 11:46 PM	#4
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 10,587	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Well, this is looking interesting. I need to make the poll public so we can see who likes their jobs done by council. (But cannot) Stuffed if I went to college so some council bloke does my job. __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

23rd October 2008, 07:18 AM	#5
Galbee Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,290	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Ah yes but it is jobs for the boys when we are worn out from competeing with the hacks, we apply to become tree officers with the local auth or is that just my retirement plan?

View Poll Results: Should councils assess trees on private property
Yes	10	34.48%
No	19	65.52%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

23rd October 2008, 07:49 AM	#6
TrevMcRev Sponsor Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Posts: 1,492	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No I think there needs to be some governance over what happens to trees on private property. And council are the body of people to do that. But their role should only be inspection for the purpose of approving or declining requested works by a homeowner or arborist. For me the ideal scenario is an independant arborist inspects first, & writes the specification for works. Then a permit application is made. Then a council officer with arb knowledge inspects to see if the request is appropriate. The council should be guided by, and support the recommendations of the independant arborist. Where it goes wrong is when someone with an ArbEgo gets on a power trip and sees their role as *the* arb consultant to the entire community. It's an interesting position of power to have. You can tell people to do the most wonderfully, arboriculturally correct things, which is great if the only thing in the world that mattered was the holy goodness of trees. The problem there is the trees being manged by them are still in the real world, co-existing with human life close by, often even beneath their canopies for one of our very most basic human needs, shelter, sometimes not by choice due to location of a bedroom in relation to a neighbours overhanging tree and be powerless to do anything about it. Mr. CouncilArbs suggestion might be thin canopy by 5%. Qualified Arborists shouldn't be denied the ability to implement pruning works that conform to Aust Standards. Ps. I didnt vote as the choice is too black or white. My answer is grey! __________________ Total Tree Care - Melbourne Arborist Reports & Consulting,Tree Pruning & Removal \| Elm Leaf Beetle Treatment Melbourne www.treegear.com.au - Australia's Best Value Arborist Supplies FREE shipping for TREEGEAR Members-Join here

23rd October 2008, 08:42 AM	#7
treeseer Former Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SE USA Posts: 811	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Didn't mean to cut you out of anything Eric; I did not know the council would stay in-house with that. Makes no sense to me. In other countries (not usa) councils have lists of qualified arbs to use.

23rd October 2008, 08:53 AM	#8
Sean Freeman PDF King & Arborist Extrodinaire Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Townsville Nth Queensland & Gold Coast Sth Queensland Posts: 2,130	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Councils here do not have the tree officers to complete their existing workloads I very much doubt that givent he way the economy is currently running any of them will ever be in a position to do more than visit the most contentious and troublesome tree sites.

23rd October 2008, 07:01 PM	#9
Quintrex Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 758	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No I agree with Trev. Without some official control, ther would br wholesale tree removal for views and leaves on lawns IMO. However, the current system in most Sydney LGA's could do with a tune up. __________________ Heightmaster

6th February 2009, 07:50 AM	#10
hanging from a rope Sappling Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: new york Posts: 29	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No i think goverment should stay otta the tree biz,they tend to mess up everything they get involved with now they wanna play arborist...

6th February 2009, 10:52 AM	#11
treefeller Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: aaa Posts: 241	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No I have recently put in an applications for a Chestnut to be removed as it has severe bleeding canker, With recomendation for replanting. The tree has a tpo in place and the local authority are happy to have reports made by qualified arborists, the system usually takes about 6 weeks. as for the poll i voted no as the trees are on private property and providing that the arborist is fully qualified and experienced to carry out a full inspection why should the councils be involved

6th February 2009, 07:55 PM	#12
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 10,587	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No I believe governments are there to govern, not do our jobs. But in saying that for them to govern our industry or any other it means they need to have experts in certain fields so they dont get sucked in to a load of Pop E. Cock. But for them to go out and assess trees means they're taking my job, a monopoly and funded by a tax system ... how the fug do I compete against that and the 9 day fortnight, 15% super, 4 weeks annual leave with loading, 10 full days and 10 half days sick leave, bereavement leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, paid public holidays, overtime loading, height loading, wet weather loading etc etc etc ... all courtesy of taxes! __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

7th February 2009, 01:13 AM	#13
hanging from a rope Sappling Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: new york Posts: 29	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No i know i commented already, just imagine if you had to summit aplications for not only public works tree related but private works,an by the time any town official got around to oking or understanding the jobs in question,well you might as well sell your company an find a new 9-5 gig cuss crediters dont care what your waiting on they want there cash,a couple of towns in nothern westchester new york do that already,i had a client file to remove a dieing elm the town guy came out said no the tree's fine rejected the aplication, in a months time the elm was totaly shut down a heavy storm came through the tree took out half the house,thank god the the bedrooms were located on they other end,the homeowners went after the town an won,an it turns out the town tree inspecter was not even a real arborist yes he took the the written test,but never spent any time in the field..............

10th February 2009, 06:04 PM	#14
Q.Q. Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Western QLD. Australia Posts: 303	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Hmm how would you compete with all that government funded money Ekka. Hate to say, but I know the feeling and it sucks. I have to say no, you guy's did it all of of your own backs and payed for it all.Why wouldn't the council just get you guy's to acess the tree's and give you some more work?. I sometimes wounder about that sort of stuff out here, I really wish I could get properly qualified so I could give the right info. Yep I have seen the council work out here,they do enough just get the job done, I wounder what the reports would be like?. Mabie I'm going about this the wrong way, I applie for a council position and get them the pay for all the training __________________ Q,Q's Tree & Garden Maintenance FAMILARITY BREEDS CONTEMPT

10th February 2009, 07:48 PM	#15
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 10,587	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No I got something on the boil mate... be patient. Rome wasn't built in a day. __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

10th February 2009, 10:28 PM	#16
Q.Q. Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Western QLD. Australia Posts: 303	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Women would disagree with you there mate __________________ Q,Q's Tree & Garden Maintenance FAMILARITY BREEDS CONTEMPT

11th February 2009, 06:31 PM	#17
treekiwi Certificate in Horticulture (Level 4) + Diploma in Arboriculture (Level 6) Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Zealand Posts: 269	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Now heres a bit of a shake up. Our new Leader John Key has decided that he will shake up the RMA or resource management act which basically governs the way district councils protect trees. He has now decided to target amongst other things the cancellation of blanket tree protection: Inserting provisions into the RMA that remove the ability for blanket tree protection rules to be imposed in urban areas. These rules generate more than 4000 resource consent applications annually. Scoop: Government Reform of the Resource Management Act This basically means that tree protection can no longer be put in the council district plan... What does this mean for the private trees of New Zealand???? Time will tell, hopefully this can be resolved and streamlined and a common tree protection law passed. Surely it cant got backwards?????

11th February 2009, 10:34 PM	#18
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 10,587	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No That sounds interesting, lets wait and see what happens. __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

7th July 2009, 09:23 PM	#20
Apocalypsse Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 580	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Council fail @ having properly certified arbor consultants. Every tree report ive seen done by a council has been soo dodgy it makes the maori's (sp) look like professionals.

8th July 2009, 12:34 AM	#22
Therrin Tree World Ninja Monkey Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Bakersfield, Ca Posts: 2,705	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Who's to say that the system and the way its set up should be catered to YOUR wishes? Life isnt fair Ekka. So that's the way it is...ok. Are you gonna change it? Cuz anything short of a plan to do that is more like a pity party. "ahhhh, the system's set up against me, ahhh these wanks all get what Im supposed to get, ahhh why cant things be fair for Meeeee" gives a blank stare Ok its 6:30am, im going to bed. __________________ Stihls: 200T, 011, 028, 260p, 361, 660 Give a man a match and he'll be warm for a moment, but light him on fire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

8th July 2009, 06:55 AM	#23
windthrown Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 1,238	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Around here (in Oregon and California, anyway) we have these designated Tree Cities. What a Tree City means varies from city to city. Some restrict street tree plantings to specific types of trees, and restrict any cutting or pruning of street trees without a permit. Other cities restrict what you can cut regardless of where any tree is on your property. Usually when trees are over 20 feet high they need a permit to be cut, and in some cases they need a permit to be pruned. What I see as a result of these restrictions is far less cutting than should be done. Stands are not thinned right, and some very overly large trees and stands are becoming a problem. For example, we are on county land here and we can cut or prune any trees here that we want, w/o any permits. Even 120 foot redwoods, or 150 foot Doug firs. Now, go over 2 miles to the nearest city limits, and trees like this cannot be cut without a permit. Even a 20 foot tree cannot be cut w/o a permit there. Typically someone from the city comes along and evaluates the tree to be cut, then makes a recommendation. If the tree is dead or leaning or an obvious problem, they will issue a permit. If it is not, then you have to put a sign on the tree stating that there is a permit request to remove the tree. If there are any complaints about the tree being removed, usually the permit will be denied. If it is a street tree, a cutting permit will usually be denied. Near here there are some city suburb neighborhood stands that are 60-80 years old. The Doug firs in them are 150-200 feet high. They will continue to grow higher and wider. If they are left as they are, the next big strom that comes through here like in 1962 will simply flatten them and cause a huge amount of housing damage. No one seems to remember the big storms here though, and they seem to love living in the big ass tree groves. In the county areas out here, people are allowed to cut and there are smaller and fewer tall trees. The stands are better, and for the most part the trees are in better shape. Also the risk from massive storm damage is far less. So from my perspective living and working on trees around here, I believe that regardless of intention, permitting tree cutting just causes more problems over the long term due to overly restricted cutting. It is similar in private forest lands. The tree huggers see, they want to save all the existing trees. Dead or alive. Seeminly they do not want more trees, as clear cutting favors more boimass than old growth forsts do. Seemingly they do not want healthier trees, as old growth stands tend to have more decay and disease. Seemingly they do not even want to save the trees at all, as keeping massive stands of trees uncut just invites a wildfire to come in and burn them all down. Seeminly they even want to save the old dead trees in stands, for wildlife habitat. Some massive areas of beetle-killed pines in the west are being held up for logging by the environmentalists. That is what happened in San Diego. The pine stands died, and were just left there to 'rot' while they held up cutting in court. Meanwhile a massive fire whipped through there and burned them all down. Certainly there are old forest stands of trees that need to be preserved. Just like in many neighborhoods, some trees should be preserved. However, it seems that of late around here, that translates to all the trees needing to be preserved. And as a result, nature will have its way. The trees around here will be blow down or burn down, or some insect or disease will come along and take care of the trees for us, becasue we are politically incapable of managing them ourselves. __________________ . Stay thirsty my friends... Modified Stihl work saws: 310, 4 x 026 / 3 x 361 / 1 x 044 / 066 in rehab Sorry, my global parts shipping is suspended at this time.

9th July 2009, 01:38 AM	#26
Mr Spinny I'm new here so be nice Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Victoria Posts: 1	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No I believe Councils shouldnt have the right to assess private trees. In my experience they dont take ownership of the job at hand and stay with the job card untill its finished, if I ran my buisness the way they do, I would be out of a job. We have been trying to build on our own land now for 5 years now, and have seen many an estate go up around town. This is due to the bush on our land, we love the bush and is why we want to live there we only want to clear enough to build our residence no more..... out of 20 acres I think there would be enough space for a house. Our main problem has been trying to get the planning done the correct and lawful way which has hindered us. If we had have done what a neighbour did 5 years ago and just send a dozer in without consulting we would have had a fine but would have been living in our own house by now.... there is no real justice in this. DSE are consulting the council on one hand and I feel that they spent too much time researching greenpeace in college. CFA are just trying to make sure everyone is safe - why these guys are getting sued from Black Saturday I dont know........ whos the first people you call when your in trouble. This is the space where the body looking after the land owners interest should be. Which I feel should be the councils job. Now what happens if these two bodys cant agree? CFA and DSE the whole thing goes into a loop, they sat down at our block for half a day and couldnt come to a conclusion because ones rules contradicted the other... Council - wont do anything unless they have an agreement by these two bodys and dont make these guys mediate if they cant agree. VCAT should not exist because the council cant take ownership of a job card. In my opinion if someone cant do a job they get sacked or go out of buisness, thats what happens in the real world..... Every year new rules eventuate and keep prolonging the building plan....Black Saturday has now hindered us for another year......or 5 - everyone in Marysville is ammune to the new building regulations, but people that have been planning it longer like us have to accomodate to new building laws that make it impossible to adhere to because the firesafe materials and inferstructure doest exist yet..... basically a bunch of laws that were thrown out there.... next stop $20,000 and the surpreme court....with still no guarentee of a win. We have already spent $5000 on an independant enviromental asseement which is basically a 60 page essay to say "damn there a lot of trees on this land".......and about to spend another $5000 on an independant assessment on the fire side of things which will say "damn trees and houses are still going to burn". This is still 90% of the people living in the bush. I have lost faith. If anyone is going through a similar thing I would like to know to get some people together for ways to combat the red tape and change some overdue laws.

9th July 2009, 08:10 AM	#27
windthrown Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 1,238	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Well, land and building laws vary from state to state here in the US. And within states they vary on site location, county, city, and the region that the state is in, like along the Pacific, Atlantic or Gulf coasts, in the plains or Rockies, or in a drought or desert area. There are also specific issues with local geology, earthquakes, fire and hurricanes, as well as farming, irrigation and well rights, botanical assessments, etc. Then there are issues with electric utilities and easments, timber and mining rights, and other factors. In this state of Oregon in 1972, they decided to come up with what is called the 'green line'. Outside the line, its agricultural zoning. If a land area is less than 100 acres, and there was no building on it or permit to build before 1972, then you cannot build anything on it. You can grow trees or farm it. That's it. If it is over 100 acres, then you can usually build ONE HOUSE on it. That's it. My ex has 105 acres, and she cannot build more than one house, and cannot develop the land, or use the water for irrigation, or sell off parcels of the land. She can grow trees, and must mitigate the invasive plant species like scotch broom, hawthorne and blackberries. She also has to burn the slash by law, or face fines if a lightening stike or other hazard causes a brush fire. Managing that size of a parcel was a full time job for me whan I lived there. I used to think that building outside the green line was impossible. It is even harder inside the line, for opposite reasons. For example, I looked at a foreclosed half acre parcel a few weeks ago with a house that had been a rental for 20 yerars. It was a dump. The only way to make it work as an investment would be to tear the place down and build two nice houses on quarter acre lots. So I looked at the zoning, and saw the reason that it was still available and for cheap. MINIMUM building requirement was 9 units per acre. I would have to chop the place up into five tiny 4300 sq ft lots. But there was no way to do that. I asked about a variance to get it cut into 4 lots, 5,000 sq feet each. Oh, but then I would not be able to put in access that the fire department would approve of. They have to be able to get into all areas and turn a fire engine around. There was also the issue of piping in sewars, and water and utilities, and the rear neighbor having an easment to her property, and yadda yadda... to buy that place I could leave it as one house and maybe break even after fixing it up, or spend a lifetime in city hall and at the county planning commission getting permits and variances and all that. They want MAXIMUM density building inside the green line. No exceptions. So that land will become an apartment complex or a condoplex. Or someone will buy it and build a single monster home on it. There is really nothing else that can be done, due to the local building and zoning laws. My ex is in a similar situation, and she will have her 105 acres, and nothing else can be done on that property either. No way to make money there on trees. That is a loser... farming is even harder to make any money at. Its funny here in Oregon, Drive along the green line in the outer areas of the cities and it is high density housing on one side of the road, and vast expanses of farming and trees on the other. There is no blending of land use here. This is the only state that has this radical of a building requirement. Also over time they just expand the green line to allow more high density building. The cities are like a cancer. High density housing swallows up all the new building areas. It also forces small unincorporated areas to not have any industry or ability to grow economically. No housing means no local labor. No local labor means no growth, and no economy. No economy means repressed areas in rural Oregon. Right now the unemployment rate in Portland is about 12%. In the rural areas of Oregon it is over 20%. Depression era numbers out there. By design. Its what they wanted in some grand scheme in 1972. Oh yes, and if you are rich? Just buy a parcel and build on it anyway. Then pay all the fines, and you are good to go. A neighbor at my ex's did that a few years ago. He built this monster tudor mansion down there without any permits. They came out and filed all kinds of petitions and violations against him. He went to court, paid all the fines, and got a final permit on his house before I moved out last year. He had 20 acres I think it was. Money seems to pave the way to doing anything that you want. Worldwide. __________________ . Stay thirsty my friends... Modified Stihl work saws: 310, 4 x 026 / 3 x 361 / 1 x 044 / 066 in rehab Sorry, my global parts shipping is suspended at this time.

9th July 2009, 09:51 AM	#28
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 10,587	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No Mr Spinny, I feel for you mate .... did you read this joke about red tape, quite accurate but funny. __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

9th July 2009, 10:13 AM	#29
CPT I'm new here so be nice Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 3	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No I voted yes to this tread. I do not think there are any similarities with plumbing or electrical work. I am at TAFE and plenty of the people who I have gone through with are Council Workers. Some of them who I know have completed Level iv are only in the tree crew. I do not see them as hopeless retards who are stealing my work and getting paid for it by my tax money. I am sure that the perks of a normal job, such as super and holiday pay, seem good. If that is the case maybe the downside is they don't have their own business and therefore have limited earning potential compared to a business owner. The main issue that I see here, and why I voted yes, is impartiality. My first job in the industry was with someone who was not very neutral when it came to tree assessments. He had a biased view as he also wanted the contracting work. This isn't a thread about consulting and contracting work so I wont go there. The important role that qualified Council Workers have in Sydney is to be impartial. To be able to balance the owners needs, the tree's (every living thing surely deserves an impartial voice) and the greater community's needs. Sure there may be times when they get it wrong but I believe that that is part of the job. If they get it wrong you can challenge them, their say is not final, if they get wrong on most occasions they are incompetent and will be found out. What I am getting at is that people are good, mostly, but I also know that money can make me think twice. As a member of the greater community and as a tree lover I am glad that there are qualified people there who can and should be impartial.

9th July 2009, 03:52 PM	#30
treekiwi Certificate in Horticulture (Level 4) + Diploma in Arboriculture (Level 6) Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Zealand Posts: 269	Re: Should councils (govt) assess private trees \| poll \| Vote Yes or No My opinion is in the middle.... At the end of this month changes are to be made to the Resource Management Act 1991. With a change of government, our new prime minister has decided to streamline councils and change parts of the RMA. This particularly impacts our industry because part of this is the proposal to make it illegal for local authority to put general tree protection in their district plan. Up until now, the 3 main councils in Auckland have imposed a blanket tree protection which means that native trees over 6 m and 600mm dbh and exotic trees of 8m and 800mm dbh are protected from all pruning and root excavation except with a handsaw. This has meant that a large number of consultant arborists have been employed to liase with the council on behalf of the property owner and have build substancial livelyhoods on this as a result. In a way the council assessed the tree and asks the client for specific details or plans through a qualified arborist, so generating work.. I believe that this has lead to a greater awareness of trees for the public and a greater appreciation. Basically the decision is down to number crunching, 4000 tree consents are issued per year, a big amount of paper work i admit... But what will happen when the protection goes? What about all the trees that were saved because of people wanting views or leaves in gutters?? On the flipside, my local council that i deal with alot has a different approach... the RMA outlines that councils should have some form of protection but doesnt specify WHAT... the majority of councils have none... My council charges $800!!! to look at a tree for removal unless you can prove it is dangerous or may cause injury, so this means that me, as a qualified arborist, get told by a council worker that Liquidambars 'do that' when i told them that I had a Liquidambar with a broken co-dominant stem that was heavily decayed and needed removal... But their plan says i can prune with a chainsaw and outlines no guidelines for pruning?? Just my two cents... it should be mandatory for Qualified arborists to access and make the decision.... __________________ www.urbantree.co.nz www.urbantreecare.co.nz

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