Protected Tree removal - is it possible ?

breda said :

About 30 years ago, a friend purchased a property which had a cute little gum tree (a peppermint gum, as it turned out) in the front yard. It looked pretty innocuous.

20 years later, it was three times the height of the house, dropped branches at unpredictable intervals, and the roots were getting into the foundations. Hardly anything would grow in the front yard. Every time there was a high wind, she was worried. But, thanks to the Kommissars running the ACT government’s tree protection area, she was not allowed to spend thousands of dollars of her own money to remove it.

She left town, and sold the house. God help the purchasers. If one of the big branches came down in a storm, the house could be severely damaged, and the inhabitants put at serious risk. But, hey, trees are people too, right?

I remember a case at the coast I think where a man was killed by the tree he’d been battling with the council over for years.

kakosi said :

A mentally unstable neighbour got a very large old tree removed by complaining it was cracking the walls of his house. Of course he also thinks fences around his house “cage him in”, but that didn’t stop him getting permission to remove that tree and then going on to remove every single smaller tree, bush and living thing on the property – including poisoning the grass.

So perhaps acting mentally unstable is the answer to your dilemma?

Confirms my theory about how things can have a way of suddenly becoming more flexible or negotiable.

rezenebe said :

Work out what the reduced useable land area of your block is and reduce your Rates payment on a pro-rata basis for all future years. As a leasehold land occupier, the ACT Government is not permitting you to make use of all the leased land you are paying for.

If the block is a new-ish (say 10 years or less) one this has already been done and will be on the lease. If it is not on the lease that is fair enough and the OP should check the neighbours rates notices to see if there is a reduction.

However, having land on which you can build is not the only criteria on which values are worked out. Some people may prefer to have a huge tree on their block. Not me, but that’s why I didn’t buy a house with a huge tree on the block.

A mentally unstable neighbour got a very large old tree removed by complaining it was cracking the walls of his house. Of course he also thinks fences around his house “cage him in”, but that didn’t stop him getting permission to remove that tree and then going on to remove every single smaller tree, bush and living thing on the property – including poisoning the grass.

So perhaps acting mentally unstable is the answer to your dilemma?

About 30 years ago, a friend purchased a property which had a cute little gum tree (a peppermint gum, as it turned out) in the front yard. It looked pretty innocuous.

20 years later, it was three times the height of the house, dropped branches at unpredictable intervals, and the roots were getting into the foundations. Hardly anything would grow in the front yard. Every time there was a high wind, she was worried. But, thanks to the Kommissars running the ACT government’s tree protection area, she was not allowed to spend thousands of dollars of her own money to remove it.

She left town, and sold the house. God help the purchasers. If one of the big branches came down in a storm, the house could be severely damaged, and the inhabitants put at serious risk. But, hey, trees are people too, right?

Work out what the reduced useable land area of your block is and reduce your Rates payment on a pro-rata basis for all future years. As a leasehold land occupier, the ACT Government is not permitting you to make use of all the leased land you are paying for.

Can everyone who is against the cutting down of this tree post photos of all the native monster trees they have planted in their back yard?

caf said :

breda said :

It is lunacy to have a policy whereby people can plant whatever they like, wherever they like and then subsequent residents find it difficult or impossible to do anything about it.

You say this like “subsequent residents” just have the property fall into their lap one day.

In reality of course, the subsequent residents have purchased the property, and in so doing have had ample opportunity to investigate what trees are on the block. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to buy it – which means that the original planters of the allegedly unsuitable trees are the ones that have to wear the problem.

breda said :

And, why should the OP effectively have his block size reduced just because some previous resident planted an unsuitable tree in the wrong place?

Because the OP knew about it when they purchased the block?

Because all buyers have the knowledge to recognise the plants in the garden and anticipate their future size, and they have their plans for the future and their housing needs all figured out exactly in advance, and they have the luxury of rejecting any house that isn’t perfect because there are so many other great and affordable properties to choose from which meet all the other criteria they have. I’m not sure I see that happening.

rhino said :

Skidbladnir said :

I want more information on this one. how large a tree are we talking, how wide is the tree at ground level, can you provide photos and a Google maps/NearMap/ACTMapI link?

It’s a trap.

There’s an (awful) private messaging feature of the WordPress system this site is hosted on.
Try it out sometime.

Personally, we successfully had a protected tree removed with approval from Environment ACT a few years ago, after having to self-educate about their regulations a while back, in order to have a reasonable discussion with ACTPLA over the course of several hours. Some of their staff are just c***s, some are actually very reasonable if you know what you need from them.

breda said :

It is lunacy to have a policy whereby people can plant whatever they like, wherever they like and then subsequent residents find it difficult or impossible to do anything about it.

You say this like “subsequent residents” just have the property fall into their lap one day.

In reality of course, the subsequent residents have purchased the property, and in so doing have had ample opportunity to investigate what trees are on the block. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to buy it – which means that the original planters of the allegedly unsuitable trees are the ones that have to wear the problem.

breda said :

And, why should the OP effectively have his block size reduced just because some previous resident planted an unsuitable tree in the wrong place?

Because the OP knew about it when they purchased the block?

Skidbladnir said :

I want more information on this one. how large a tree are we talking, how wide is the tree at ground level, can you provide photos and a Google maps/NearMap/ACTMapI link?

It’s a trap.

Skidbladnir said :

I want more information on this one.
On what grounds was it protected, can you provide copies of correspondence with ACTPLA thus far, where is it on the block and in relation to other entities both on the block, how large a tree are we talking, how wide is the tree at ground level, can you provide photos and a Google maps/NearMap/ACTMapI link?

just ask masquara, she already ninjad this information.

OP DO NOT GIVE AWAY YOUR LOCATION

I want more information on this one.
On what grounds was it protected, can you provide copies of correspondence with ACTPLA thus far, where is it on the block and in relation to other entities both on the block, how large a tree are we talking, how wide is the tree at ground level, can you provide photos and a Google maps/NearMap/ACTMapI link?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

GardeningGirl said :

astrojax said :

is it just me or have all the comments for everyone else gone all italicised? why?

Yes, I see it too.

The human rights argument in the earlier post makes sense to me, but is going to court to argue human rights really needed just to get some common sense happening?
Another thing I was wondering, not sure if it’s been mentioned, is the tree interfering with solar access at all? Either yours or a neighbours or the proposed extension?

also apparantly devolping a allergy to a tree will allow it to be cut down.

That’s good to know. One of our neighbours has planted a tree right beside the fence that ticks every box for too big for suburban blocks, invasive roots, dropping branches, allergies. I saw tubers being sold at Bunnings as “good fast-growing hedge” or something like that. Hedge? It’s a tree, in time a huge one! I do think nurseries have a role to play in informing people better about what they’re buying if they don’t bother to do any research and just accept the labels at face value. Even with research we’ve all made mistakes, something hasn’t grown well or has grown much better than expected. We should be allowed to correct those mistakes, or to make changes due to changing circumstances.

To clarify what I said about solar access and the proposed extension, I mean would the extension as proposed improve the house’s energy rating, or if you had to build a compromise extension to go around the tree would that have a negative effect on the energy rating, that sort of thing?

GardeningGirl said :

astrojax said :

is it just me or have all the comments for everyone else gone all italicised? why?

Yes, I see it too.

The human rights argument in the earlier post makes sense to me, but is going to court to argue human rights really needed just to get some common sense happening?
Another thing I was wondering, not sure if it’s been mentioned, is the tree interfering with solar access at all? Either yours or a neighbours or the proposed extension?

also apparantly devolping a allergy to a tree will allow it to be cut down.

astrojax said :

is it just me or have all the comments for everyone else gone all italicised? why?

Yes, I see it too.

The human rights argument in the earlier post makes sense to me, but is going to court to argue human rights really needed just to get some common sense happening?
Another thing I was wondering, not sure if it’s been mentioned, is the tree interfering with solar access at all? Either yours or a neighbours or the proposed extension?

is it just me or have all the comments for everyone else gone all italicised? why?

cmdwedge said :

For every tree you save, I’m poisoning three.

This is why our species is screwed.

Take ACTPLA to court and seek removal of the tree based on it impeding on your human rights. If as described, it will affect your children due to change of friends/school, you will cannot afford to move etc. Then that bastard of a tree is obviously impeding on your basic right to live.
Take ACTPLA to court and seek removal of the tree, based on it impeding on your human rights. If as you describe, it will affect your children due to change of friends/school, you cannot afford to move etc. Then that b@stard of a tree is obviously impeding on your basic right to live.

Whilst Project Managing a building construction in Canberra, our company was taken to court by a business adjoining our site. Their argument was that when turned on, the air-conditioning units mounted on the roof would be excessively noisy.
The lawyer on the claimant’s side argued that the noise would violate his client’s basic human rights. They ultimately lost the case, but the judges did seek submissions on the human rights aspects. The judges only ruled in our favour after we had three independent noise studies done, which showed the air-con units would operate well within the allowed noise signature.

It might be worth a try. If anything you’ll just line the pockets of another greedy lawyer.

Masquara said :

Googlemapped and exact tree identified – your neighbours will be warned as well. No doubt they will keep an eye on it – good trees are valuable in any neighbourhood.

For every tree you save, I’m poisoning three.

Masquara said :

Er this issue is not a DEAD tree is it?

not yet, but in a few monthes it will be 🙂

I also agree. And if the person above me is named GardeningGirl and even she agrees, then I think it’s the reasonable position to have.

Er this issue is not a DEAD tree is it?

breda said :

I recall a story in the Crimes a while back where a property owner had to get permission to remove a dead tree – and he had to jump through all sorts of hoops. There was a photo – the tree was very large, very dead and very dangerous. Ridiculous.

It is lunacy to have a policy whereby people can plant whatever they like, wherever they like and then subsequent residents find it difficult or impossible to do anything about it.

Having had a similar problem in my yard, the tree guy and I agreed that the monstrosity that was ripping up paving, destroying plumbing and dropping branches was just a shrub – so bye bye ‘shrub’.

People like posters on this thread who claim that we are just tree-hating rednecks are living in la la land. I have planted three suitable trees to replace the monstrosity. And, why should the OP effectively have his block size reduced just because some previous resident planted an unsuitable tree in the wrong place?

+1

I completely agree, “it is lunacy to have a policy whereby people can plant whatever they like, wherever they like and then subsequent residents find it difficult or impossible to do anything about it . . . why should the OP effectively have his block size reduced just because some previous resident planted an unsuitable tree in the wrong place?” and a poorly chosen/located tree can affect neighbouring properties too. I love trees (of course I do!) but current regulations and policies seem designed to turn them into problems instead of things we value and appreciate.

breda said :

I recall a story in the Crimes a while back where a property owner had to get permission to remove a dead tree – and he had to jump through all sorts of hoops. There was a photo – the tree was very large, very dead and very dangerous. Ridiculous.

It is lunacy to have a policy whereby people can plant whatever they like, wherever they like and then subsequent residents find it difficult or impossible to do anything about it.

Having had a similar problem in my yard, the tree guy and I agreed that the monstrosity that was ripping up paving, destroying plumbing and dropping branches was just a shrub – so bye bye ‘shrub’.

People like posters on this thread who claim that we are just tree-hating rednecks are living in la la land. I have planted three suitable trees to replace the monstrosity. And, why should the OP effectively have his block size reduced just because some previous resident planted an unsuitable tree in the wrong place?

Exactly.

The points about dropping trees is extremely valid and should be a sole reason to get rid of them from suburbia. I can apreciate a large native tree as much as anyone but common sense and human safety should come first.

I recall a story in the Crimes a while back where a property owner had to get permission to remove a dead tree – and he had to jump through all sorts of hoops. There was a photo – the tree was very large, very dead and very dangerous. Ridiculous.

It is lunacy to have a policy whereby people can plant whatever they like, wherever they like and then subsequent residents find it difficult or impossible to do anything about it.

Having had a similar problem in my yard, the tree guy and I agreed that the monstrosity that was ripping up paving, destroying plumbing and dropping branches was just a shrub – so bye bye ‘shrub’.

People like posters on this thread who claim that we are just tree-hating rednecks are living in la la land. I have planted three suitable trees to replace the monstrosity. And, why should the OP effectively have his block size reduced just because some previous resident planted an unsuitable tree in the wrong place?

I will be removing numerous trees from my yard both front and back, all bar 2 are legally able to be removed. Of the 2 that are questionable one is causing major damage to retaining walls from its root system and is way to close to the house for my liking. None of the trees are native trees, all have been planted over the past 20 years by previous owners who have not given any thought as to the location and how big the trees would get.

It seems that every owner of the house has had to plant trees just for the sake of doing it without any planned landscaping of the place and now we have inherited this mess. It is going to cost a pretty penny to get it all sorted out but it needs to be done to bring the yard back into some kind of order.

I will be seeking approval for the 2 large trees to be removed but the smaller ones are history, I counted over 27 trees in our yard and you can tell by just looking at them that they are not thriving. Many are dying from borers and pose a safety risk to both our house and the neighbours home.

Personally I do not believe there should be any large gum trees on suburban lots as they pose to much of a safety risk. If you have ever seen a gum tree shed a limb then you know why they are called widow makers.

We will plant smaller manageable bushes once the trees are gone.

toriness said :

to those commenting on this thread along the lines of ‘my land, my tree, i can do what i want’ & advising the OP how to poison a healthy plant – you sound like a good ol’ yiihaar deep south separatist or one of those wanky sydneysider property owners poisoning their own or (even worse) someone else’s tree to get a better water view. we have government and laws for a reason, and protection of trees in communities for a reason, because they make our suburbs a nicer place to live. why don’t you go and live in the desert if you don’t care for greenery, natural shade, and providing a home for wildlife around us? oh sorry that probably sounds ridiculous. well so do you!

so how many native gums or boxes have you planted in your back yard?

to those commenting on this thread along the lines of ‘my land, my tree, i can do what i want’ & advising the OP how to poison a healthy plant – you sound like a good ol’ yiihaar deep south separatist or one of those wanky sydneysider property owners poisoning their own or (even worse) someone else’s tree to get a better water view. we have government and laws for a reason, and protection of trees in communities for a reason, because they make our suburbs a nicer place to live. why don’t you go and live in the desert if you don’t care for greenery, natural shade, and providing a home for wildlife around us? oh sorry that probably sounds ridiculous. well so do you!

Haha I’d really love to hear how you retards think actpla or tams can locate the OP without John boy giving out the information.

If tree is in somebody’s back yard, it should be fair game. It does not belong to the community.

I have taken huge trees off nature strips before with not one complaint or question. Unless you are living next to some nosy POS then you will be fine.

Mordd said :

This article is shameful, “Protected” mean nothing to you, and yes this is a very thinly veiled attempt to ask how to break the law, anyone who can’t see that is being wilfully blind. Add 1 extra person who will be passing this on to ACTPLA to ensure the trees ongoing protection from vandals like yourself.

I can’t wait to see that one. “Dear ACTPLA. Somebody is going to kill one of the protected trees in their yard. I don’t know which one so you had better watch them all. And put AFP Forensics on standby just in case.”

Despite being offered some advice that was outside the scope of the OP’s request, there was nothing thinly veiled about it. OP was very clear about wanting to do things the right way. Tree huggers, it seems, are much easier to troll than kangaroo kissers.

could the tree be integrated into the design, there is a house on Duffy street in ainslie that has a grand old tree growing through a hole in their deck. Perhaps some kind of courtyard or conservatory.

This article is shameful, “Protected” mean nothing to you, and yes this is a very thinly veiled attempt to ask how to break the law, anyone who can’t see that is being wilfully blind. Add 1 extra person who will be passing this on to ACTPLA to ensure the trees ongoing protection from vandals like yourself.

poetix said :

rosscoact said :

Your house is worth less because it is on a block with a big tree that you are required to protect for the rest of community. That is the facts.

If you don’t like it then suck it up or move but leave my tree alone

I suppose this is a problem that seldom arises in Gungahlin…

Certainly not at my place, but where it does occur the block is bigger and a no-build zone is created during the estate development to prevent people from profiting from vandalising the tree for their own ends.

Antagonist said :

Masquara said :

If someone posts their intention to break the law and behave in a way that will affect their local community negatively, it’s perfectly in order to take steps to protect Canberra’s treescape.

Could you please enlighten all of us by showing where the OP indicated an intent to break the law?

+1. The OP asked for advice on getting permission to remove the tree legally. Your comments were completely uncalled for.

Masquara said :

If someone posts their intention to break the law and behave in a way that will affect their local community negatively, it’s perfectly in order to take steps to protect Canberra’s treescape.

Could you please enlighten all of us by showing where the OP indicated an intent to break the law?

Why not build up instead of out?

Absolute joke. Is really nobody’s business if you want to remove trees on your property Do you have to get approval if you want to remove a rose bush or replace your blueberry bush with raspberries ?

I love it that we go to the trouble to set up governments so they can then police this type of rubbish.

If the Libs proped to get rid of thes stupid regualtions they would become very popular.

PS – drill a hole in the roots then fill it with diesel – keep doing it for a few weeks & the tree will die.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Masquara said :

Googlemapped and exact tree identified – your neighbours will be warned as well. No doubt they will keep an eye on it – good trees are valuable in any neighbourhood.

Lol I would like to know how you google mapped this when no info is given about location.

Go home troll.

OP, I need fire wood. Ask Jb for my email and if you ay for cherry picker fees I will take care of the pesky tree.

If someone posts their intention to break the law and behave in a way that will affect their local community negatively, it’s perfectly in order to take steps to protect Canberra’s treescape.

rosscoact said :

Your house is worth less because it is on a block with a big tree that you are required to protect for the rest of community. That is the facts.

If you don’t like it then suck it up or move but leave my tree alone

I suppose this is a problem that seldom arises in Gungahlin…

Your house is worth less because it is on a block with a big tree that you are required to protect for the rest of community. That is the facts.

If you don’t like it then suck it up or move but leave my tree alone

Wait until the next bushfire approaches town, then grab the nearest person with a chainsaw and say it’s a fire risk.

Also, unless you are being filmed doing it, how can courts prove you put nails or salt in a tree?

Masquara said :

Googlemapped and exact tree identified – your neighbours will be warned as well. No doubt they will keep an eye on it – good trees are valuable in any neighbourhood.

Lol I would like to know how you google mapped this when no info is given about location.

Go home troll.

OP, I need fire wood. Ask Jb for my email and if you ay for cherry picker fees I will take care of the pesky tree.

Masquara said :

Note that your post will be communicated to ACTPLA so they will put a watch on the tree!

You seriously have nothing better to do than worry about a tree?

The way I see it, it’s your land, let Masquara turn their property into belangelo state forest if she loves trees that damn much.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Why is it protected? Over 15 metres?
Salts a good option.

What’s the fine for cutting it down yourself?

It used to be a $10k fine – and yes, they will watch this tree now. Good luck.

Googlemapped and exact tree identified – your neighbours will be warned as well. No doubt they will keep an eye on it – good trees are valuable in any neighbourhood.

Morgan said :

Copper nails?

+1. You won’t find them at Bunnings. Try Ebay. Big trees need big copper nails. They will need to be driven in somewhere difficult to see. Think below ground level or up very high.

Why is it protected? Over 15 metres?
Salts a good option.

What’s the fine for cutting it down yourself?

There are many and varied ways to have a tree start to die on you. However you have probably shot yourself in the foot by doing the right thing and discussing the matter with ACTPLA. Any change in the condition of the tree would now be viewed most very suspiciously and investigated.

That said, I don’t know what the water table is doing around Canberra these days, salt moves up and down in many areas and trees find it difficult to survive in salty ground.

Note that your post will be communicated to ACTPLA so they will put a watch on the tree!

It’s pretty windy at the moment. If you know a guy with a truck and heavy chain then a good chunk of the tree could “blow” over.

Copper nails?