News 
 Local News 
 News 
 News 
 Laman Street fig removal plan uprooted 

Laman Street fig removal plan uprooted

16 Dec, 2009 04:00 AM
LAMAN Street will become a one-way road, parking will be banned and nearby public seating removed because of the public safety risk that ageing trees pose to the strip.

Newcastle City Council will begin implementing the measures today and expect to have physical work completed by Christmas.

The move comes after councillors last night voted 8-5 to reverse a November decision to remove and replace 14 Hills fig trees in the Cooks Hill strip and replace them with a different species.

Staff recommended the action because the ageing trees were deemed a public safety risk.

A packed public gallery last night applauded and cheered at the rescission motion's success and booed those councillors who stood against it.

Protesters also gathered in Civic Park before the meeting, asking the council to reconsider the decision to chop down the trees.

Petitions containing almost 2500 signatures also supported the protesters' call.

The council will now consult the community, consider arboricultural advice, risk assessments and other options for Laman Street by May 2010 before making a decision about the trees.

Cr Michael Osborne said no one was suggesting doing nothing in Laman Street, but all options to manage the risk, not just tree removal, must be considered.

Lord Mayor John Tate suggested, with his colleagues' support, that general manager Lindy Hyam be authorised to take necessary measures to ensure public safety in the precinct.

A council spokeswoman said last night that the council's traffic committee had agreed to close Laman Street to east-bound traffic between Darby and Dawson streets, with a diversion at Dawson Street.

All parking would be removed.

Seats in Civic Park that are located under vulnerable trees have been taken out.

Two traffic drop-off zones for art gallery and library visitors will be added to Laman Street.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Why will removing parking improve public safety? Rarely do parked cars have people in them.
Posted by Bigfeller, 16/12/2009 8:03:23 AM, on The Herald
all those in favour of retaining these trees should have their names placed on record and when someone gets injured or killed they should all be made accountable. let's see how many people put their names on record then.....
Posted by ffs, 16/12/2009 8:10:42 AM, on The Herald
power to the (stupid) people
Posted by fuxourcity, 16/12/2009 9:05:31 AM, on The Herald
Regardles if the trees are removed now or later they will eventually fall over or die of old age as no tree lives for ever. These tree supprters need to be aware that they will be responsible (and guilty) should someone be injuried or killed should one of these trees fall.
Posted by thinkitthrough, 16/12/2009 9:29:26 AM, on The Herald
Another short sighted and temporary fix by a council altogether too willing to kow tow to the vocal minority. How is this sustainable? A one way road, no parking or seating adjacent the Park, Regional Art Gallery and Library!
Posted by Max Best, 16/12/2009 11:22:49 AM, on The Herald
No parking!? That is ridiculous! I don't even drive but I value the importance of parking out the front of our regional library and art gallery. Trees in the suburbs and in backyards are just as if not more dangerous than these mighty trees. The FOUNTAIN is more dangerous, how about we remove that too? The only thing that needs to be removed are incompetent councilors.
Posted by Nick, 16/12/2009 11:42:02 AM, on The Herald
So if a branch say falls and hits me I can now sue the NCC for that you beauty.
Posted by Paccy, 16/12/2009 12:12:45 PM, on The Herald
so we are going to sacrifice the efficent use of a street to accommodate some trees that will die or fall over in the near future anyway? Surely it would make sense to start replacing some trees now. If you dont stagger the planting of new trees the same problem will occur in another 100 years when they all reach maturity again and need replacing.
Posted by light_green, 16/12/2009 12:46:27 PM, on The Herald
If the council deemed the trees to be that dangerous worthy of removal, then changing the direction of traffic, stopping parking in the area (yet again making it more difficult to park in Newcastle-Well done!) and removing seating only reduces the likelihood of injury or damage to property. The danger is not removed and therefore exposes council to risk of litigation should someone be injured. It seems that rather than making a tough and unpopular decision, councillors have made a limp wristed attempt to meet 2500 squeaky wheels happy. I can't wait to be hit by a falling branch again. Ching Ching!
Posted by Worried, 16/12/2009 1:29:50 PM, on The Herald
Using the pay per use car park at the rear of the library/art gallery poses greater dangers than sitting under any of these trees.
Posted by demon_aus, 16/12/2009 1:46:42 PM, on The Herald
1 | 2 | 3  |  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.
 CIVIC PROTEST: Councillor Nuatali Nelmes. - Picture by Kitty Hill
CIVIC PROTEST: Councillor Nuatali Nelmes. - Picture by Kitty Hill
Related Coverage
POLL
Q: The fig trees in Laman Street, Newcastle: should they be chopped down and replaced?

Yes
(27.9%)

Yes, but not all at once
(24.8%)

No
(47.3%)

Total Votes: 226
Poll Date: 15 December, 2009

Most popular articles


 
Balance Health Club-Wests Tower
 
Bounce
 
Landcom Sanctuary


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...