Dumb laws on tree removal

Tymefor said :

In 2013 there was a total of 1 fine issued for $250 according to this article. Food for thought, not everyone bothers with the process.

“Last year, TAMS received 2115 applications to remove, prune or lop trees, most were for tree removal and about half were granted”

So only 1000 trees were removed in the ACT hmmmm.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/government-struggles-to-stop-people-killing-protected-trees-20140520-zrilh.html

On the corner of Cotter Road and Lady Denman Drive Yarralumla, The ACT government has run a slaughterhouse for trees for years, with growing mountains of tree trunks in the process of being woodchipped.

It remains unsignposted so as not to attract the attention of passersby.

There should be at least a suitable gateway arched with the slogan: “Arbor Macht Frei”.

I also think of those poor mature date palms that were uprooted at great expense from warm Concord in Sydney to be condemned to a slow lingering death, in the freezing shadow of the Canberra International Sports and Aquatic Centre, in the eternal Canberra hope that the sun would finally rise in the southern sky as God meant it to.

vintage123 said :

rosscoact said :

vintage123 said :

rosscoact said :

I remember a neighbour removed a 4 metre high tree on a footpath ie a street tree because he didn’t like it.

Parked a trailer next to it. Cut it down with a chainsaw. Used a stump grinder to take it below surface level and filled that back with topsoil. Took the remnants away with a trailer. Very impressive.

TAMS came along a week or two later, had a look, scratched their heads and drove away. Nothing more was said.

I like trees and wouldn’t cut one down without good reason but if I had a good reason I certainly would not be seeking any permission to do so.

A $200,000 fine, it would have to be a seriously good reason.

There is little to no chance of getting fined $500 let alone $200,000 if history has any relevance. What is the highest any householder has been fined ever? Less than the cost of removal I would expect.

It may not be probable, but it is possible. I guess it just depends on your risk appetite and or budget. I have seen two trees in a front yard cut down at 10am in the morning and the council issue 2 X $4000 fines at midday. The owners sold the house a month later.

Some people might think that $8000 to improve home saleability and street appeal was extraordinarily good value. Certainly worth the risk that it might be more. You would pay more to do an inside paint.

switch said :

rubaiyat said :

How they have overlooked the problems has me stunned.

Welcome to the Real World, Rubaiyat. The people planning the tram are off in Fantasy Land, and not just about the wholesale destruction of Northbourne Ave’s beautiful trees. As many have been saying here for some time.

I’ve met and discussed this with Jim Gentleman. I am well aware of who is doing what, just not who is making this decision on the trees.

As to Fantasy Land, that seems to come in multiple flavours.

I have come to the conclusion that Canberra is very much a part of Disneyland, with suggestions of Monorails and Tomorrowland cars all round.

The mood seems to be for the Lake Burley Griffin jet to be replaced by the real symbol of business as usual, The Eternal Oil Derrick of Happiness gushing forth black goodness forever.

rubaiyat said :

How they have overlooked the problems has me stunned.

Welcome to the Real World, Rubaiyat. The people planning the tram are off in Fantasy Land, and not just about the wholesale destruction of Northbourne Ave’s beautiful trees. As many have been saying here for some time.

rosscoact said :

vintage123 said :

rosscoact said :

I remember a neighbour removed a 4 metre high tree on a footpath ie a street tree because he didn’t like it.

Parked a trailer next to it. Cut it down with a chainsaw. Used a stump grinder to take it below surface level and filled that back with topsoil. Took the remnants away with a trailer. Very impressive.

TAMS came along a week or two later, had a look, scratched their heads and drove away. Nothing more was said.

I like trees and wouldn’t cut one down without good reason but if I had a good reason I certainly would not be seeking any permission to do so.

A $200,000 fine, it would have to be a seriously good reason.

There is little to no chance of getting fined $500 let alone $200,000 if history has any relevance. What is the highest any householder has been fined ever? Less than the cost of removal I would expect.

It may not be probable, but it is possible. I guess it just depends on your risk appetite and or budget. I have seen two trees in a front yard cut down at 10am in the morning and the council issue 2 X $4000 fines at midday. The owners sold the house a month later.

One of my biggest objections to the Northbourne Ave Light Rail route is the wholescale removal of the existing avenue of trees and the proposed replacement with immature Brittle Gums.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-04/brittle-gum-trees-chosen-to-line-northbourne-avenue/6520846

Brittle Gums?!

If the name doesn’t give it away a quick look on line shows that it drops limbs. And it sounds more prolifically than other gum trees which are very poor urban trees, and next to Light Rail!?

The Australian National Botanical Gardens entry on e mannifera recommends against planting it near buildings.

https://www.anbg.gov.au/gnp/gnp7/eucalyptus-mannifera.html

This absolutely demands a “please explain” from the department involved. It sounds like the decision has been made on the aesthetic qualities of the trunks and that they are natives. How they have overlooked the problems has me stunned.

The original ACT Tree Protection legislation was passed following a well-publicised case of the removal of a tree in the inner south, which apparently displeased some well-connected people. The then Labor opposition criticised the legislation for being overly restrictive but, of course, tooks steps to make the legislation more restrictive after it came to government. Along with strict liability offences, and heavy-handedness which might be more appropriate to matters of national security, the legislation is a serious over-reaction to a non-existent problem.

There was no crisis of widespread tree felling in the years prior to the original legislation being passed (although there was some very interestingly timed activity just before it came in…), and for every tree which has been protected – against the wishes of those living with it – one has to wonder how many more have been removed pre-emptively before they grow to a size which attracts protection, or have not been planted at all.

In support of the tree protection legislation, there are all sorts of nice, general, feel-good arguments about the “urban forest” etc. etc., which tend to blithely overlook the considerable cost, inconvenience and, for some, danger, presented by large trees on suburban blocks. If the benefits to the broader community are as great as claimed, perhaps homeowners who are forced to live with large protected trees could be allowed a worthwhile (several hundred dollars a year would be a starting point) rebate on their rates – which could be used to meet costs such as much more frequent drain and roof clearances. Better yet, as Affirmative Action Man suggests, let homeowners take responsibility for this.

vintage123 said :

rosscoact said :

I remember a neighbour removed a 4 metre high tree on a footpath ie a street tree because he didn’t like it.

Parked a trailer next to it. Cut it down with a chainsaw. Used a stump grinder to take it below surface level and filled that back with topsoil. Took the remnants away with a trailer. Very impressive.

TAMS came along a week or two later, had a look, scratched their heads and drove away. Nothing more was said.

I like trees and wouldn’t cut one down without good reason but if I had a good reason I certainly would not be seeking any permission to do so.

A $200,000 fine, it would have to be a seriously good reason.

There is little to no chance of getting fined $500 let alone $200,000 if history has any relevance. What is the highest any householder has been fined ever? Less than the cost of removal I would expect.

It’s ironic when you look at photos of Canberra before it was developed – mostly just grassland. Now that the city is built and people have planted trees, you’re not allowed to remove them.

My brother applied for permission to remove a large eucalypt that was in the powerlines – permission was declined unless he planted SEVERAL trees to replace the ONE he wanted to remove. He then pointed out that the block was already so full of trees and large shrubs that there wouldn’t be enough space to plant the required replacements. Approval was then granted.

I wonder where the liability lies if you apply for removal of a tree that may be dangerous, the ACT Council declines permission, and then the tree (or part of it) falls down and causes damage and/or injury…

I think trees are great, as long as the correct tree is chosen for the spot, and it doesn’t shade your neighbours’ northern aspect. That’s selfish, and made worse if the tree is not deciduous.
I have planted eleven trees on my block, plus other bushes and vines, but none of them are large, or will shade the neighbours. Most are deciduous. I have planted a lot of native plants, and will continue to plant them, but none are big trees.

The rules mostly apply to trees either:
•12 metres or more in height; or
•1.5 metres or more in circumference at 1 metre above ground level [so diameter about 0.5 m or more]; or
•with two or more trunks and the total circumference of all the trunks, 1 metre above ground level, is 1.5 m or more, or
•12 metres or more in crown width.
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/parks-recreation/trees_and_forests/information_about_tree_protection_on_leased_land

rosscoact said :

I remember a neighbour removed a 4 metre high tree on a footpath ie a street tree because he didn’t like it.

Parked a trailer next to it. Cut it down with a chainsaw. Used a stump grinder to take it below surface level and filled that back with topsoil. Took the remnants away with a trailer. Very impressive.

TAMS came along a week or two later, had a look, scratched their heads and drove away. Nothing more was said.

I like trees and wouldn’t cut one down without good reason but if I had a good reason I certainly would not be seeking any permission to do so.

A $200,000 fine, it would have to be a seriously good reason.

Rollersk8r said :

Alexandra Craig said :

Rollersk8r said :

We now have one very large gum remaining – and I hate it. Drops huge amounts of litter, kills the lawn, can’t plant anything else near it, drops sticky oil all over the cars. But not allowed to get rid of it! We’re now designing extensions around the tree – which will most definitely be removed at some stage, when it’s finally deemed to be a danger to the house, or starts blocking pipes etc.

What if the tree is dead? Are you allowed to remove it then?

Well the correct process is to get someone to come around and confirm it’s dead, then give you permission to remove.

Dead parrot syndrome?

I remember a neighbour removed a 4 metre high tree on a footpath ie a street tree because he didn’t like it.

Parked a trailer next to it. Cut it down with a chainsaw. Used a stump grinder to take it below surface level and filled that back with topsoil. Took the remnants away with a trailer. Very impressive.

TAMS came along a week or two later, had a look, scratched their heads and drove away. Nothing more was said.

I like trees and wouldn’t cut one down without good reason but if I had a good reason I certainly would not be seeking any permission to do so.

I think TAMS tree protection unit do a great job. The tree preservation act is a solid policy.

Alexandra Craig said :

Rollersk8r said :

We now have one very large gum remaining – and I hate it. Drops huge amounts of litter, kills the lawn, can’t plant anything else near it, drops sticky oil all over the cars. But not allowed to get rid of it! We’re now designing extensions around the tree – which will most definitely be removed at some stage, when it’s finally deemed to be a danger to the house, or starts blocking pipes etc.

What if the tree is dead? Are you allowed to remove it then?

Well the correct process is to get someone to come around and confirm it’s dead, then give you permission to remove.

It’s been a while since I dealt with this issue and I’ve since moved, but it was a very simple process to remove and unwanted large and prominent pine from my block in the inner north, back in 2004 it would have been.

I was helped by the fact the trunk was rotten, confirmed by a tree surgeon who happily removed the tree.

It seems like there’s a few readers who won’t be happy to learn the pine was replaced it with a eucalypt. At least I chose a local species that grows to about 5-7m. It’s a great looking tree and still looks great a couple of years after selling.

There was also an old plum tree in the backyard fall over during a storm, so that removal process was pretty easy too!

I seem to be in a minority in that I really like eucalypts and thankfully these days there’s plenty of options around that are more suitable for suburban applications than the monsters that were often planted back in the 70s.

Rollersk8r said :

We now have one very large gum remaining – and I hate it. Drops huge amounts of litter, kills the lawn, can’t plant anything else near it, drops sticky oil all over the cars. But not allowed to get rid of it! We’re now designing extensions around the tree – which will most definitely be removed at some stage, when it’s finally deemed to be a danger to the house, or starts blocking pipes etc.

What if the tree is dead? Are you allowed to remove it then?

Tymefor said :

In 2013 there was a total of 1 fine issued for $250 according to this article. Food for thought, not everyone bothers with the process.

“Last year, TAMS received 2115 applications to remove, prune or lop trees, most were for tree removal and about half were granted”

So only 1000 trees were removed in the ACT hmmmm.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/government-struggles-to-stop-people-killing-protected-trees-20140520-zrilh.html

Yep. Unless there was a recent tree survey done on your block, (which you would know about because you pay $4k + for a full site survey, and only if you want to subdivide or build) nobody can prove anything. I heard there were some rumours about google maps being used but sounds unlikely that some bureaucrat would go to such lengths to identify missing trees. As long as the stump is promptly dug out of the ground and disposed of I don’t see the issue.

In 2013 there was a total of 1 fine issued for $250 according to this article. Food for thought, not everyone bothers with the process.

“Last year, TAMS received 2115 applications to remove, prune or lop trees, most were for tree removal and about half were granted”

So only 1000 trees were removed in the ACT hmmmm.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/government-struggles-to-stop-people-killing-protected-trees-20140520-zrilh.html

I generally agree! I’ve gone through the approval process and paid thousands to have most of the gums at my place removed – and I wasn’t responsible for planting any of them. Even the ones on the nature strip had to be removed at my expense.

We now have one very large gum remaining – and I hate it. Drops huge amounts of litter, kills the lawn, can’t plant anything else near it, drops sticky oil all over the cars. But not allowed to get rid of it! We’re now designing extensions around the tree – which will most definitely be removed at some stage, when it’s finally deemed to be a danger to the house, or starts blocking pipes etc.