Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Protected Tree removal – is it possible ?

PeterJe 8 September 2012 63

Due to changing family requirements I need to extend the family home, the only direction that I can go is in the path of a protected tree.

Moving isn’t really an option as I couldn’t afford to purchase back into the suburb and I am not about to move the kids away from their school or friends.

I have lodged a Tree Damaging activity form, but development is not one of the grounds for removal of a tree. I  tried negotiating, by agreeing to plant more trees elsewhere on the block but I have been advised that there is no leeway with the legislation. They have advised that the only path that I have is to lodge a development application.

I have had several meetings with ACTPLA but they seem to speak a different language. There doesn’t appear to be a clearly defined criteria on what you need to meet in order to get permission to remove a protected tree on development grounds.

The builders I have spoken to are also perplexed with how to successfully go about the process.

Could someone please give me some pointers on how you successfully get a protected tree removed on development grounds.

Is anyone aware of anyone that can I engage to act in the role of an advocate to assist me through this process?


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
63 Responses to Protected Tree removal – is it possible ?
Filter
Order
Mordd 1:43 pm 09 Sep 12

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.

Truthiness 3:05 pm 09 Sep 12

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.

Antagonist 6:06 pm 09 Sep 12

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.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 7:00 pm 09 Sep 12

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.

Innovation 7:35 pm 09 Sep 12

Truthiness said :

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.

+1 – or if you suspend the slab or use a raised floor (with enough clearance around the trunk you might even be able to have the tree as a feature/ talking point in the middle of a room or verandah. You could glaze around the tree to protect the room from the elements.

I was serious and not trolling but if the fine is still only around 10k most people wouldn’t spend the extra cash on construction costs. It was over a decade ago when I heard stories of a builder cutting down a tree while their colleague was at the counter paying the fine.

toriness 3:39 am 10 Sep 12

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!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 9:04 am 10 Sep 12

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?

Mav 9:38 am 10 Sep 12

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.

breda 10:06 am 10 Sep 12

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?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 10:55 am 10 Sep 12

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.

GardeningGirl 11:49 am 10 Sep 12

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.

Masquara 12:28 pm 10 Sep 12

Er this issue is not a DEAD tree is it?

rhino 12:30 pm 10 Sep 12

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.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 12:41 pm 10 Sep 12

Masquara said :

Er this issue is not a DEAD tree is it?

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

cmdwedge 12:53 pm 10 Sep 12

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.

Hosinator 1:08 pm 10 Sep 12

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.

Truthiness 1:11 pm 10 Sep 12

cmdwedge said :

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

This is why our species is screwed.

astrojax 1:14 pm 10 Sep 12

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

GardeningGirl 1:51 pm 10 Sep 12

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?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 2:16 pm 10 Sep 12

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.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site