News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Arborist questions fig tree safety risk 

Arborist questions fig tree safety risk

25 Sep, 2010 04:00 AM
A second independent arborist has joined calls for Newcastle City Council to review information on which it based a decision to cut down Laman Street’s fig boulevard.

But the council said it remained confident in its advice, which came from several sources and all concluded the trees posed a significant safety risk.

Sean Freeman, a consulting arborist to local government in south-east Queensland and northern NSW, has taken an interest in the case following community outcry.

Campaigners fighting to keep the 14 Hills figs on the Cooks Hill street have questioned the council’s information and methods for determining that the trees are failing and pose a public safety risk.

Independent arborists were consulted as part of the council’s decision.

Protesters also enlisted professional advice, and have highlighted the opinion of arborist Mark Hartley, who said incorrect assumptions had been made about the figs.

Mr Freeman said on Wednesday he supported Mr Hartley’s view after reviewing case information.

His opinion was also based on a visit to Laman Street last year.

‘‘My time in [Laman] street didn’t leave me with an impression that the trees were an enormous risk ... to public safety,’’ Mr Freeman said.

A council spokeswoman said that over the past few years the council had commissioned several reports from respected independent arborists regarding the condition of the figs in Laman Street.

‘‘All of the reports came to the same conclusion: that the trees pose a significant risk,’’ she said.

The spokeswoman said the council’s arborists agreed with the findings.

‘‘Council is confident that the advice it has received regarding the figs is sound,’’ she said.

The council was to begin felling the figs this week but work was halted amid community-initiated court proceedings.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The arborists who have assessed the trees on council's behalf were all under the incorrect assumption that there had been 'whole tree failures' during the Pasha Bulker storm, meaning that the trees were uprooted. They were not. The remaining trees were judged on that basis. Since the basis for their assessment is totally incorrect, how can the community rely on them? How can council justify completely ignoring dissenting views rather than take them on board and dealing with them? There have certainly been some dramatic tree failures - due to root severance by council - in other streets, but this is not the case in Laman Street. 1200 trees failed in the Pasha Bulker storm in Newcastle and most of them were eucalypts. NCC's arborist earlier this year said that this would set a precedent for us and all other LGAs - every other mature fig is likely to go, regardless of the state of its health.There is a test council could use called, unfortunately, the 'pull test' and, for $27,000, the stability of the trees could be determined. A better deal than the $1.4million the desertification of the street is costing - while some suburbs don't have footpaths. Your rates at work.
Posted by Caitlin Raschke, 25/09/2010 9:08:39 AM, on The Herald
NCC took three years to get rid of a boulder that most agree could have just pushed onto the beach by a bulldozer. It is now hell-bent determined to get rid of trees that most people seem to want left there. It's hard to imagine a council more out-of-touch and confrontational towards its citizens.
Posted by just a thought, 25/09/2010 9:26:00 AM, on The Herald
Surprise, surprise! Of course NCC's own arborist agreed with the findings.
Posted by Seven of eight, 25/09/2010 10:53:10 AM, on The Herald
Cut 'em down and get 'em on the side.
Posted by Fay, 25/09/2010 11:24:29 AM, on The Herald
Seems the flaws of the QTRA system need to be exposed as it's been a major influence in the decisionmaking process. http://www.treeworld.info/f29/tre e-risk-assessments-15methods-comp ared-15383.html Ultimately, the council owns the trees and is responsible for them. Council has to consider its duty of care. The exact strength and integrity of trees is unknown. In New Farm Park in Brisbane, $90K was spent on diagnosis but the trees continued to fall for two years. This proves that no-one knows exactly when trees will fail. Not all failed in bad weather, either. Some failed after heavy pruning. What is clear is that personal opinion and perception of risk among arborists is not the same and it cannot be said that those with a higher risk psyche are better arborists. Arborists will always want to cut a tree down before it falls. Once it has fallen or failed, it's too late. A debate will always be present - remove, or attempt remedial works. The costs of remedial works and risk needs to be compared to that of investing in replacement trees. Is delaying the inevitable appropriate?
Posted by www.treeworld.info, 25/09/2010 3:24:08 PM, on The Herald
The public perception is that council has considered opinion before evidence - opinions that appear to be based on false assumptions, as pointed out by Mr Hartley. The council has the right to make long-term planning decisions for the replacement of significant tree avenues but shouldn't play the safety card to justify this one. The claimed high risk is unsubstantiated in this case. Exaggeration of risk associated with trees causes undue public alarm and promotes widespread misconceptions. Residents of Newcastle have good cause to distrust the decisions of Newcastle councillors if this is a typical example of how they handle such an important decision. Shame on you, Newcastle Council. Examine the evidence before you condemn these trees.
Posted by jan, 25/09/2010 8:24:54 PM, on The Herald
Are the arborists' reports available for the public to review?
Posted by Ozzie, 26/09/2010 1:42:47 AM, on The Herald
Stop wasting taxpayers' money deciding and leave the trees alone. Get on with the job of blocking the street to cars. Make the street into a walkway boulevard, please. Make this city something that we can be proud of once again. Here is a thought - why don’t you end town at the Workers' Club and move all the nightclubs down to the west end? You can then utilise the top part of town for presenting Newcastle as the place you want to visit, with restaurants, shopping, inner-city apartments and tree-lined streets. That way you will only have a mess at one end of town to clean up. Police will be able to patrol the area with more ease. The train line is the only one in the world that takes you right to the beach. So, leave that alone, too. Thank you, Mr Freeman, for speaking.
Posted by ashamed, 26/09/2010 10:28:45 AM, on The Herald
This circus could go on forever, with each arborist giving a different opinion on the subject. It is time for Newcastle City Council to bite the bullet and get the job done before all of the money available for infrastructure maintenance has been blown on arborists' opinions.
Posted by Bazza, 26/09/2010 12:10:22 PM, on The Herald
@ ashamed. The train line to Cronulla (and its beach) is pretty handy, and no one wants to dig it up.
Posted by judgedredd, 27/09/2010 4:02:15 PM, on The Herald
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
FOR THE CHOP: Laman Street's fig trees.
FOR THE CHOP: Laman Street's fig trees.

Most popular articles


 
 
 


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...