Where do I stand - dangerous tree that council wont let me remove

rotanon

Hi All,

I need some advice. I have a significant gum tree on my land that over the last 2 years has shed 3 significant limbs. The tree is 6m from our house. Fortunately, none of the limbs have hit the house.

There is a Section 173 over my land (a type of TPO), and therefore I have approached council to have it removed. The council have advised the tree is healthy, and will not grant me a permit to remove. I've had an independent arborist review the tree, and they also confirm the tree is healthly with a life expectency of 15+ years.

With a track record of failing limbs, I think it is a matter of time before another breaks and hits the house (or worst still, hits and kills someone).

I am thinking of engaging a lawyer, but before I did I thought I seek feedback on what I should do through this forum.

Given I've raised the issue and the council has refused, are they technically liable for any future damage???

This is causing me and my wife serious stress.

We are in Melbourne Australia

Regards

Eric Frei

Some issues.

The council says it is fine.

The independent arborist says it is fine.

Yet the tree has shed 3 limbs of which we have no details (length, diameter, location from where it fell and type of branch attachment).

We also have no details of the tree.

As to who is liable, that will be a legal battle I think.

Just because the council says something has to stay it doesn't mean you neglect the reasonable upkeep of it, so if pruning/cabling/fall restraint is required then do it.

__________________

Apocalypsse

Are you in the City of Whittlesea?

If both the council arborist and independent arborist say its healthy then theres very little chance of getting the tree removed. You can try to get a permit to prune the tree or get it cabled if necessary. Being a significant tree you'll need a qualified arborist to prune to tree according to "AS4373 Pruning of amenity trees", council will be watching like an eagle if too much is taking off/not pruned to standards.

rotanon

Nillumbik.

The tree of species name `Eucalyptus polyanthemos`, common name Red Box. The 3 limbs that have failed range from 200mm to 450mm in diameter, mostly off the main trunk of the tree, and from heights (approx I cant reach to measure) of 3m, 6m and 10m.

I appreciate the aborists opinion, they are the expert not I, but it doesn`t help me rest easy on windy days when these size branches come off it.

Apparently the other avenue I might be able to explore is its proximity to the house (6m). Apparently under the current bushfire regulations, anything within 10m of the house you can cut down (I need to understand how the Section 173 applies though)

Eric Frei

rotanon,

Those limbs the tree shed are often typical and predicable an likely in nature.

You did not disclose the size, DBH etc of the tree so we can speculate.

As trees grow they shade out lower parts, often then they "lose" those parts, that's why so many have straight tall trunks with little low branching

I just think you a presenting a restricted negative perspective and not wanting this tree.

__________________

rotanon

Thanks Eric, my intentions have been clear all along, I see this tree as an unacceptance and unnecessary risk, hence the reason why I have sought permission to get it removed.

Your response (as quoted above) has helped me. For me it just reenforces the fact that this sheding of limbs may continue, and therefore will my concerns are justified.

A little perplexed about the "predictable" comment. If that were the case, I would have thought we would read far less instances of large limbs coming off trees and damaging property

Brent Ferris

Pics of the tree would help and how it is situated to the house.

__________________
My business: Tree Pruning and Removals -- Strump Removals -- Advice -- Consulting -- Arborist Reports
If you want an honest opinion, call Brent Ferris...because, Trees want to Live Too !
We do great jobs, even in small yards.

Free Estimates Oakville to Oshawa - North to Bradford (Will travel further if cost of travelling covered)

bill24

"Apparently the other avenue I might be able to explore is its proximity to the house (6m). Apparently under the current bushfire regulations, anything within 10m of the house you can cut down (I need to understand how the Section 173 applies though)"

Therein might lay your answer, it was the law that occurred to my mind also, and would be worth exploring. Perhaps a chat with your local C.F.A. might shed some light on the subject. They would have had plenty of enquiries I would say.

Think your being a bit rough of the fella Eric, he is obviously worried that the tree is going to drop a limb on someone and kill them - his wife is the same - the tree is 6m from the house and from the size of the limbs dropped is probably at least 800 - 900 DBH.

Its only going to get bigger and the risk is not going to go away.

No arguement that its a healthy tree, its the limb dropping feature of the eucalypts that is the problem for him.

I'd be getting the tree out of there as soon as I could and replant with a more suitable tree.

Councils telling you what you can or can't do on your own freehold land is utter B.S., good luck with your project Rotanon.

derwoodii

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/ass...Q_20110204.doc

Q. Does this mean that I can clear vegetation if there is a section 173 agreement on my property?
A. A section 173 agreement is an agreement between the council and land owner under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and can be used to protect vegetation on a property. If a section 173 agreement applies to vegetation you wish to remove under the 10/30 right you will need to seek an amendment to this agreement with your local council.

Eric Frei

What if all the limbs emanate from included bark collarless unions? Very hard to diagnose this without the data.

I seriously doubt that 2 arborists would enforce the tree stays if 3 limbs have dropped of that size unless they are satisfied that no more will drop.

Often the evidence remains in the tree, the tearing off point, need to see that.

Insufficient data and facts available, to draw conclusions this early is emotional not logical. Heck for all we know the tree was topped and these are epicormics busting out.

__________________

Apocalypsse

This is the kind of situation the council will fight though. Things like 'why build so close to a tree?' or 'why buy a house so close to a tree' would be asked by the council Arborist. Which imho, are good questions to be asking.

What we really need though are pictures because we could keep debating things back and forth but without hard facts we can give solid answers that could possibly resolve the issue, at least to an extent that works for both sides.

Darrell Mcleod

Section 173s - protected trees, vegetation etc - dealt with them quite a bit now, just getting one organised for a subdivision I am helping with from the other end down near Frankston

Be interesting to know how long the Section 173 has been in place and what it says exactly

Eric is correct



rotanon,

you need to get someone involved who can access the tree and has experience with Section 173s, planning etc otherwise all of this is just speculation

In Victoria as far as I understand Section 173s are put into place through, administrated and policed if you like by local government but in the end controlled by State government probably through Planning Schemes - so once you get your head around that and understand what is really going on then you know in FACT what you are dealing with

I think it is correct to say - the only way to have one altered or removed is through agreement with council and state planning

We need pictures and facts otherwise we are just wearing our fingerprints away typing