Tree Protection Unit

same sh1t happen to me, apply twice last year due to a branch fall on the fence, got rejected. Now 3 huge branch came down, knock down half of my fence. That’s where our tax money goes, send some “professional” from their office, look around the tree for few minutes and said it didn’t not meet the criteria but recommend you to ask arborist to assesse it regularly.

I sure do. I have a tree that is five metres from my house. The particular type of tree, according ot the ACT government, should not be planted within 9 metres of a house. National Botanic Gardens says the tree should not be planted near a dwelling. The NSW govt says the same. ACT, NSW govt and Nat Botanic Garden say this species drops branches. Well, it does; it has almost taken out a bedroom of my home. We no longer use that room. It has ruined plumbing ($4000 repairs) and paving. My friend has exactly the same situation – and he has had his application to remove REFUSED. He is up on his roof every week cleaning it from the debris of this tree. His eves have been destroyed by this tree. Mine have been damaged by the tree I have. It is pointless. This place is run by crazed Greenies who have totalitarian tendencies. But the joke is on them. My mate was going to put in solar power and solar water. But given the ongoing plumbing and maintenance expenses – and the fact he would be constantly up on the roof cleaning the crap from the tree from the solar collectors – there is no point. So, they continue to emit lots of carbon when there was the chance drastically reducing it for this household. I am in the same boat. The proximity of the tree to my friend’s house also means the value of his property is $50,000 lower – because people do not want trees that close.
So, for the sake of a tree, the greens now have two households actually increasing their carbon emissions. Well done greenies. “Stupid, doctrinaire, irrational greenies.”

We have the same problem. A friend of mine has applied to remove a couple of trees. TAMS approved one and rejected the other.No real reasons were given for not approving the removal, even though the tree is only a couple of metres from his house, drops branches all the times has damaged cars and almost brained him. It has blocked his storm water and he spends a weekend a month cleaning up after this one tree.
I was looking into this and found an ACT govt doc that sets out the approved placement of trees near houses and so on – by species. It is called, “Design Standards for Urban Infrastructure (Plant Species for Urban Landscape Projects)” and can be had from:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/12568/ds23_plantspecies.pdf
You have to ensure that your application meet the criteria in the Act – and the doc above can help you do that.
The truly bizarre thing is that a leaseholder can have a dangerous tree – that drops branches according to say the national botanic gardens and is close to the house – and the greenies at TAMS will refuse permission to remove the tree and say that the lease holder should have it pruned (cost $1000-$2000), have to spend thousands on plumbers and spend much time cleaning up after the tree. The Act should be amended to allow that unreasonable maintenance cost be a reason for removal.

creative_canberran said :

From the creative genius of Dick Wolf… Law & Order: TPU.

Must have been funny in his school days, when the roll would be marked last name first, first name last: Wolf, Dick.

Tee hee…

Jethro said :

Construction was about to begin but was then held up for 4 more months because there were two protected trees in the house site. Apparently the building approval didn’t include approval to remove the trees.

This document is what you need to base your arguments on, but be prepared for a fight with Tree Unit.
Bear in mind that not even poker machines take precedence over remnant eucalypts in this town, since the Gungahlin Helennic Club is smaller than they’d planned due a lone protected tree on their chosen site (which says a lot about how much Stanhope loves trees)…

To the doubters, i wandered out and snapped a photo of our electricity tree: http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/9003/p1000870.jpg

Its kind of hard to make out, but roughly in the middle of the shot some of the power lines are actually gradually being pushed closer together by branches growing through on opposite sides.

When TAMS is involved, anything is possible. Believe.

As for how this is allowed to happen, the ACTEW guy i spoke to said that they had no jurisdiction to just go ahead and remove the tree… they had to wait for TAMS to tell them to do it. I’m not sure if this is related to the TPU, or the fact that the tree is in a public reserve or what.

Skidbladnir said :

His first comment was “When it falls you’ll be insured…”,

When it falls you’ll be insured……….what if it kills someone? Fools.

This reminds me of when my cousin, Elly-May, wanted to build a house (albeit in a different jurisdiction to the ACT). Presented plans to the council, council worker came out, looked at the site where the house was to be built, granted approval.

Construction was about to begin but was then held up for 4 more months because there were two protected trees in the house site. Apparently the building approval didn’t include approval to remove the trees.

The trick with trees is to not ask in the first place. Just quietly remove them and no-one will be any the wiser.

As someone who has had intimate dealings with TAMS in the past, there’s plenty of people there who would like to tear down every last dangerous tree. But every time they go near one some local community group called “the friends of x” or the like will come out and oppose the tearing down of that precious tree because it was planted in nineteen dickey-two back when old uncle jerold had just settled the land and was wearing an onion on his belt (which was the style at the time). So TAMS are very much in the position of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”…

DeadlySchnauzer said :

In the reserve opposite our place there is a large gum growing directly through the power lines (and by directly i literally mean half the lines are on one side of the crown and half on the other side). When there are strong winds it waves the power lines all over the place, and every now and then you get some pretty sparks. I have twice now seen ACTEW workers come out to take a look at it and shake their heads in dismay. One of them said that as far as they (ACTEW) are concerned it is an extreme hazard, but its not in their power to remove it… its all up to TAMS.

What pisses me off the most is that despite the fact that there is a tree growing directly through power lines that is apparently fine, we got a warning notice to cut back a beautiful old fruit tree in our yard because it dared to be within about 2 metres of a power line. Consistency

I find this hard to believe. If it encroaches within the set clearances, they will remove it usually via a contractor and if it is as bad as you say, it would be tendered to as a priority. If you did nothing about that old fruit tree they would have came around, removed the offending branches and give you the bill. If it was TAMS responsibility, the same would apply. They don’t muck around with clearances, they can’t afford to.