Marrickville Council has said they intend to remove 2 public trees from Camperdown Memorial Rest Park in Newtown.
Tree number 1:
A Lombardy Poplar (Populus nigra ‘italica’) from the western frontage of St Stephens Cemetery. Council gives the following reasons for removal –
- “Advanced root crown decay
- Previous branch failures
- Internal decay symptoms within the trunk
- Overall poor health & vigour.”
They say that park improvement plantings of 15 new trees will compensate proposed removal.
We went to visit both trees. This Poplar is almost dead & looking very thin on leaves. It & another Poplar a few metres away are where Council plans to plant a row of 17 Eucalyptus maculata trees. I will not be putting in a submission.
Tree number 2:
A Mugga Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) at Camperdown Memorial Rest Park, south from Northwood Street. Council gives the following reasons for removal –
- “The tree has been assessed to be a dead tree
- Necrotic foliage & borer damage visible with low level of kino production.” (Gum trees produce a red substance called kino as a natural defence against borers. A healthy tree will try to drown boring insects by producing kino. Insufficient kino production, usually caused when a tree is under stress, allows the borers to enter the tree & destroy it.)
- “Hazardous tree to frequent park users.”
Council says they will replace with “2 medium-sized canopy trees to encourage stand diversity.” Council’s Landscape Architect will decide what species of tree will be planted. They don’t say when the replacement trees will be planted.
This tree is dead. I thank Council for using sticky tape instead of nails to attach the Notification of Removal signs to both trees.
Last October 2011 we discovered that Council had already removed 2 trees from this section of the park prior to community consultation for the Concept Plan. See – http://savingourtrees.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/camperdown-memorial-rest-park-concept-plan/
That they will have removed 3 fairly large trees in this cluster of trees & will only be replacing this tree loss with 2 trees of a medium-sized canopy is a problem to my mind.
There is a large area of woodchip garden in front & another surrounding this tree. I believe that Council should be increasing the canopy by planting more than 2 trees or at the very least they should be matching the tree removal by planting 3 trees in this location. That they will be planting 17 trees in another area of the park does not take away from the fact that this is a large park of mostly grass that can easily sustain many more trees.
I will write this as a request in a short submission. The deadline for submissions for both trees is Monday 12th March 2012.