News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Newcastle's costly trees 

Newcastle's costly trees

12 Jun, 2010 05:00 AM
NEWCASTLE ratepayers paid more than $85,000 in the past five years for tree-related property damage in Cooks Hill, while the city's insurer paid about $50,000.

The cost has emerged as Newcastle City Council considers how to manage 14 ageing figs in Laman Street.

A council memo said the organisation's insurance policy had a $12,500 excess.

Two tree-related claims, lodged between 2005 and 2010, cost the council $25,000, while the insurer paid the remaining $50,395.88.

City Hall paid other claims of less than $12,500 for building damage, driveways and landscaping, sewer blockages and replacements, stormwater blockages and utilities.

These amounted to $61,269.08.

Cr Aaron Buman, who requested the information and owns a Cooks Hill property, said people were upset that trees constantly damaged their houses.

While the council's bill was less than expected, the amount was close to the $70,000 spent recently on a workshop about the Laman Street figs, he said.

The council is considering what to do with the 14 trees after receiving advice they posed a public safety risk.

Community members who want the figs to stay organised petitions.

Fig Jam Society is doing letterbox drops asking Novocastrians to rally to save the figs.

Society chairman Robert Bignell said the group was seeking legal advice to contest claims that the figs should go.

"The trees are perfectly sound," he said.

Mr Bignell said of allegations that damage costs might be a reason to remove the trees: "I suppose we wouldn't have them in any street if that were the case."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Anyone trained in horticulture will know that fig trees (and camphor laurels) planted in such locations will damage infrastructure - the problem is the wrong trees were selected to start off with many moons ago. When roots break services - telecommunications, sewerage, water, electricity people will whine and complain that the council, water board, telstra and energy australia are taking too long to fix the problem. Better non damaging species should of been selected to start off with - brush box, blueberry ash, lillypilly etc. So the people that want to save these trees should at least do their research first - and realize that the trees can go - and new ones can take their place and will save all rate and bill payers thousands of dollars in the long term. It's that simple. Figs should only be planted in reserves or parks, due to the size of their canopy and root system at maturity. But what would I know I'm only a trained bush regenerator and know nothing about trees hey!
Posted by bushrgnr8, 12/06/2010 8:37:20 AM, on The Herald
It's easy to look at the costs of trees in our city and think we are going to go broke from infrastructure damage claims but those entrusted with watching our finances need to remember their enormous benefits as well - which more than outweigh their costs.Trees pay for themselves many times over. The average street tree returns $90 000 in direct benefits to residents and the trees in Cooks Hill are longer-living and more beautiful than the average street tree so our gain from them is even greater. Trees increase real estate values, they remove the first third of stormwater, they prolong bitumen life, they reduce air temperature by up to 8degrees, they reduce crime and domestic violence, they make streets more walkable, they make distances feel shorter, they slow traffic, they make children concentrate, they lower blood pressure - etc etc. All of this is based on research: it's not just treehugging twaddle. Mr Buman is keen to have a responsible and sustainable budget: I'm sure these factors on the plus side of the balance sheet would be important to him.
Posted by Caitlin Raschke, 12/06/2010 8:51:25 AM, on The Herald
How much would any Council pay for such a magnificent scultural masterpiece? These are the jewels of the civic precincts crown! BTW the trees didnt need the $70,000 Charrette, the Council Consultants did.
Posted by Give a FIG!, 12/06/2010 9:03:57 AM, on The Herald
comes a time.....
Posted by judgedredd, 12/06/2010 10:14:44 AM, on The Herald
When Council bean counters and risk management bureaucrats carry on about the cost of tree maintenance, they ignore the other benefits of street trees including beconomic ones.
Posted by council watcher, 12/06/2010 11:48:49 AM, on The Herald
All the people who signed the petition to 'save' these trees should bear the cost of the continuing damage
Posted by Hatchet, 12/06/2010 12:27:22 PM, on The Herald
Just cut to the chase,,,the council wants to cut them down, 85 grand in 5 yrs. They spend more than that on alcohol for their council meetings probably per year. Half of Newcastle is in danger of falling down, better get rid of it as well. In this politically correct world would it be fair to say that the trees were here 1st. Are they entitled to compensation? Plastic trees will be next.
Posted by yo yo, 12/06/2010 2:34:02 PM, on The Herald
what a spectacular iconic avenue ! why oh why would council not do everything in its power to protect enhance and promote this asset.
Posted by arching avenue, 12/06/2010 6:46:27 PM, on The Herald
Please stop calling them "aging fig trees " in the big picture they are still only relatively young.
Posted by treeunion, 12/06/2010 10:05:24 PM, on The Herald
Pull them up and replant them at Caitlin Raschke's place.
Posted by moon, 13/06/2010 11:24:39 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.
The Laman Street figs.
The Laman Street figs.

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...