Clearfelling entire streets of mature trees on the agenda

That was a very good report on Stateline (aren’t they all). They should have got into this years ago… and I think the way to go is to section the trees into 3rds, pick the 3rd most buggered and do them first, plant some new ones, then go the next 3rd etc after 5 years. That way you won’t have these arid bare looking streets where there used to be magnificent trees.

It’s such a shame, these streets are made by the trees. The streets in Griffith with the chinese elms are my favourites.

Looking good now?

Excellent, thank you Mr Overlord Sir.

I’m just annoyed that the planning of something this big will end up being badly planned and haphazardly executed, like cutting off the lower limbs of the trees in the reserve behind me so the mowers could mow up to the trunks, before poisoning the grass next month and putting down woodchips.

Oaks are drought tolerant and very shady. And I think they are pretty long lived.

Deciduous species shade your house so you are cooler by about 10 degrees C, so you don’t need an air con. Gardens in general (including lawns!) are a carbon and heat sink. The more trees die, the hotter you can expect it to be.

I reckon this is down to years of neglect . . . round about the amount of years since the Department of the Capital Territories stopped looking after nature strips and scabby self-government came in. The whole place looks decrepit these days.

Native trees live shorter, look scrappy, drop limbs and debris all year round, and give hardly any shade. They also explode in bush fires. They are fine in the bush but not viable in urban areas. There are plenty of wonderful, hardy shade trees – eg pistachia, which grows really well here and is long lived.

It is a bugger, but from memory – ie not referring to the transcript – the issue is that they need to plan to do it over 15 years – a third every 5 years, the problem with that is it costs a bit more, and it might mean that some streets are become too risky or that protest action etc might stop the process.

If the trees were originally planted at the same time this was always on the cards. In order to minimise the risk and preserve the majority of the canopy the first trees come down 10 years before the end of their expected lifespan so that the last to be replaced are not too dangerous by the time they come down. Once down the street will have trees at sapling, +5 and +10 years. You can buy fully sized street trees but they are about $30k a piece plus the costs of installation, maybe Forrest or something could buy their own.

Agree with previous comments about it sucking to be the person responsible for this.

I agree it sucks. Removing a mature canopy from nature strips completely changes the look, feel and microclimate of suburban streets. A classic example is Burrendong St, Duffy (and other nearby streets) where nearly all the mature street trees were destroyed and/or removed as a result of the bushfires. Greater extremes of heat in summer from the sun and frost in winter. Neither are desirable.

yes, but we seem to be replacing the old European trees and replacing them with natives that don’t give off a lot of oxygen. we may also curb global warming – theory after a few jars at the local was that if we plant euro trees, they will make our climate wet and foggy. (alcohol induced theory, but a good idea at the time)

A lot of trees live for hundreds of years elsewhere….

get timber wood trees, put them in suburbia. oak, elm, teak, cedar, sandalwood. remove natives that just crash to the ground. in 50 yrs, cut them down and repeat process.

sustainable forests can start with the nature strip….

The government’s on a bit of a hiding to nothing here, though. If even one or two people are killed or injured by a large chunk of tree falling on them, and it comes out that the government’s known for a while that the trees in question were on the decline and unsafe, what then?
On issues like this, I think it would probably suck to be the king.