The Fig Trees Tent Embassy in Civic Park last Saturday evening. You have to admire the community who won't give up the fight against Newcastle Council while the trees are still standing. Photo by Caitlin Raschke
Some great things happened over the weekend regarding Newcastle’s iconic Laman Street Fig trees –
- A tent embassy was erected at Civic Park over the weekend to protest the removal of the Laman Street Fig trees. There were around 10 tents with residents sleeping overnight in the park.
- On Sunday night, Lord Mayor John Tate served papers on Newcastle Council’s General manager saying that, “there was concern that proper procedure had not been followed leading up to the order to cut the trees down, & two councillors missed last Thursday’s meeting.” – so the trees are still standing.
- About 250 people came to Civic Park at 5.30am this morning to form a picket line to prevent the trees from being chopped down.
I find it interesting that the rest of us mortals cannot start any building or noisy work before 7am & 8am on Sundays, but Newcastle Council could have trees chopped down at 6am. They probably thought the community would not attend at such an early hour, not suspecting that such a large crowd would arrive even earlier & on a Monday. http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/laman-street-figs-get-last-minute-reprieve/2272790.aspx
Community group Save Our Figs say that the independent assessment could be done for a cost of $20,000 of which they would pay half & that the reported cost of $70,000 was “wildly exaggerated.” Once again, the community is prepared to pay thousands of dollars to ensure an unbiased decision is made because they do not trust Newcastle Council.
Newcastle Council has even refused the offer of local businessman Roman Fidyk of the company MyFleet who offered to pay for the dynamic testing of the trees. (about $35,000). Mr Fidyk “… was amazed at the council’s lack of interest in his offer.”
I don’t understand why the Council does not take up either of these options. To do anything else, when both the community & the Lord Mayor, are advocating more examinations, leaves the impression that the Council has something to hide. Even the urgency to cut the trees today is a mirage, because the insurance company extended the deadline until the end of October 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-29/figs-reprieve/2860094/?site=newcastle
My last post on the Laman Street Figs is here - http://savingourtrees.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/the-laman-street-figs-next-life-will-be-mulch/
Another view of the Fig Trees Tent Embassy. Photo by Caitlin Raschke
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 29, 2011 at 1:23 pm
ArchitectGJA (Ed)
So much misinformation has been put forth to discredit those trying to preserve the trees. My letter to the Newcastle City Council below, sorry it’s long but I think it needs to be said:
Lord Mayor and Councillors,
I am again writing to you regarding the Laman Street figs and the process that has led to the decision to remove them.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Councillors who have voted to preserve the Laman Figs, and also to Lord Mayor Tate for his ongoing efforts, especially in light of the obvious pressure he is enduring due to his stance on this matter.
As you may know, I am commenting from afar – but I have read the reports, the letters, followed the history of events, the parties involved and observed a vast amount of disinformation that has been presented by video and publication.
I have also sadly witnessed the people who are attempting to save these trees having their credibility, motive and in some cases their professional expertise called into question.
We are told that the Laman figs are unsafe and must be removed as determined by reports in your possession and thus the figs are not insurable. Yet in reading these reports and following the history of how each successive report relies on preceding documents, the misinformation is carried forward and a vast body of information is presented.
But this vast body has flaws at its base, as did the claim that the trees are uninsurable. Even some of the conclusions announced of late cannot be found in the quoted report.
Some examples of obvious flaws:
• The wind study did not recommend tree removal as claimed, it offered easy and inexpensive mitigations.
• The SULE (safe useful life expectancy) of the Laman Street figs, by the same report writer, was initially estimated at many years then amended to zero with the introduction of a redevelopment plan.
• It was reported that the trees were uninsurable, yet the insurance company offered funds to test them, as did private enterprise, and additionally Statewide Mutual offered to continue insurance if Council provided one, one, countering report that stated the trees are viable.
You already have those countering reports in your possession, why were they not provided to Statewide Mutual to continue insurance? Why was the insurance matter released to the public as an absolute with no options? Why was the cost of fencing off the trees, the visual ugliness, the threat of closing the Library and Cultural Center and the alleged loss of insurance and accompanying liability blamed on the citizens attempting to save the trees when it was well within your power to continue insurance? Can there be an answer to any of these questions that would differ from the obvious conclusion?
I would like to make a suggestion, if there is still time and any interest in gaining a clear result that is workable for both sides. Instead of relying on a non-expert with a strong tree-removal bias to explain the conclusions of the various reports, could you hold a closed session Council meeting and provide the experts on both sides a forum to explain their conclusions to you directly? You may even ask if the report author is actually recommending tree removal and with what goals the report was initially established to perform. Of course, this would require allowing experts who believe the trees are viable to engage in this forum and not be summarily dismissed as “advocates” Questions asked amongst experts of opposing views should be enlightening.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
August 29, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Jacqueline
Thanks for sharing this Ed.
August 29, 2011 at 5:06 pm
brenda
I think the letter to Newcastle City Council offers a very sound suggestion. It is always wise not to act in haste and to conside all points of view. Please start again and consider all arguements carefully and with integrity Newcastle Council. I just dont understand why there seems to be such a rush to mulch the Laman Street Figs.
September 5, 2011 at 12:55 pm
nick
Yet the next week council employees spend big bucks on a 2 hour well prepared glamorous presentation about why the trees must come down to the architects who had put up money for the figs , they were scare mongering about Southerlys blowing them down etc Here is what a friend there said and how this person was swayed by the one sided information.It is amazing but it seems that the council officers apparently failed to give any of the other information they had that is mentioned above. Is this the role of council employeers? Should it not be to present ALL The information, not just the tree cutting “side”?
I am a little stunned by this after reading now the previous information about all the input into this .Consider for this issue, an internationally awarded aborist has taken apart an apparently flawed assessment and thus make the consequenting risk assessment nul and void
.Even I can follow the simple statistics mentioned in the counter-report. (Mr hartley’s) And yet this information is not taken on board, not addressed, not explained in proper scientific manner and not presented to the community as the total informaton package, why?
I dont get it, Is there some other agenda every one seems to now ask? And now this talk fest.A little propaganda exercise as it is still failing to discuss all the other information, why? Does it make it too hard to consider other options? Does it become too difficult to present multiple options with diffferent backing reasons? Is that too hard,really?This is the job of council employees , that is why we employ smart people.
The people I know who work in the council admin are intelligent, hard working and of highest integrity. Not one is for this environmental vandalism, this chop down mentality without proper consideration of all options.Who is for it then and why and why are these (lack of)information sessions run without balance?
Is there a failure in our local governement administration?Does this indicate a deeper problem in some parts of admin where the job done is not to find the information and present it BUT baack the information admin has chosen???????//
This is very worrying considering the developemnet applic.s we trust such to present truthfully and with balance for our elected representatives to vote upon. IS this a common practice? To leave out critical information? Interesting and alarming if so.
Perhaps that needs to be reassessed or some need to be re-educated as to who actually makes the decisions and what the job is of those supposed to provide the information…..ie provide the information, not pick out bits.
Here is a de-indentified email from that meeting, a meeting supposed to be an information sessions for the architects and you can see there is stuff there that has already been discredited YET still presented it appears….
:”.
At the request of ——-(Architect) we (——–) in association with a number of other professionals contributed to a $5K ad in the Newcastle Herald some weeks ago, to encourage Newcastle Council to ensure that full investigations were undertaken prior to opting to remove these significant trees.
“As a result of this ad we were invited to a meeting with 6 of the Council’s senior staff for a presentation & discussion on this issue. The meeting was attended by Council’s Senior Aborist, Council Landscape Architects, Council’s Senior engineer and other staff including Judy Jaeger (Director Future City).
“Over a period of 2 hours Council’s Senior Aborist gave a fairly extensive and convincing argument on the current conditions of these trees and all the options that have been investigated and undertaken over the last 5 years.
“The facts that I gained from this presentation are as follows;
• With the Laman Street figs currently being 24 metres high, they are the tallest trees in Newcastle, however
• The trees have a defective root structure caused by poor (restrictive) planting locations, the use of BHP waste as road sub-base, and poor maintenance practices by Council and other authorities over the last 70 years.
• The trees appear to only have roots running parallel to the kerbs, (east west) and nothing under the road or in adequate locations to provide appropriate support for these trees as they grow bigger.
• The trees have a very healthy feeder root system, causing the tree canopies to continue expanding “up & out” at a huge rate, however the defective structural root system is limited in its ability to continue supporting the upper level. Hence they are becoming top heavy and will eventually just fall over (due to gravity). Maybe not this year or next, however definitely within the next 5 to 10 years.
• When one single root of a Hills Figs in Tyrrell Street was cut from under a power cable some years ago, the whole tree collapsed onto the nearby preschool. This alerted Council Staff to the problem that the defective root structure could have on all such trees.
• In the last few years the canopy of the figs have grown significantly above the Library and Art Gallery, which has previously offered them protection from the strong southerly winds. So again the bigger and bigger tops, more windage and a defective structural root system providing no lateral stability in the north south direction put the trees at great risk.
• Most experts agree that the Hill Figs life span is only about 80 to 90 years, so with these trees already being about 70 years old, not removing them now is just “putting off the inevitable”.
• During the 2007 Pasha Bulka Storm, 5 of these Laman Street Hills Figs demonstrated structural failure of the root system. Three of these trees were removed after this storm. Investigation of the root system from these trees confirmed the inadequacy of the structural system.
• The report prepared by Tree Logic and the Probability of Risk formula has no bearing on this argument. The evidence has already shown that the trees fail. The only question is when?
• Judy Jaeger presented the case from a legal view point, stating that with the knowledge and evidence available Council had no choice but to limit public access to the trees. Council will also have to commence implementation of major restrictions to the Library and Art Gallery once the public liability and workers compensation Insurance Companies withdraw their cover. Council is not permitted to operate any facility without these insurances.
“Council’s solution is to “bite the bullet”: remove the trees now, and replant good quality Hill Figs, correctly located, with adequate area for the root spread, and spaced and with a management plan to ensure that the next generation can enjoy the Laman Street Fig trees.
“So based on this presentation and subsequent discussion with the Council Staff it is now my opinion that this IS THE MOST LOGICAL SOLUTION to the issue of the trees.
…………….
“…..Apparently Council’s Web site contains all the technical information that was presented at our meeting……………”
One can see it was very convincing . Nice to see our money so weelllll spent.
. What do people think of the points made by those pushing the plan ?
I If you think there were any problems with what was said perhaps those with the expertise would like to mail the relevant architects with the counter to them or were the conclusions correct????
These were the conclusions of a smart person who started with sympathies to protecting the trees. An effective propraganda 2 hours, unless all the information was presented and it appears it was not , yet again. this architect did not know of the Hartley report, did coucil officers present it? Why not?
Are we, the people, satisfied to see our public employees behaving in such a way , if indeed they did not present all the information?
Cheers Nikki