You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘tree pruning’ tag.
Last July 2012 I wrote about the destruction of the magnificent canopy of the Fig trees along the promenade at Tempe Reserve. See – http://bit.ly/NcYfJd
Since they were radically pruned I’ve watched three of the Fig trees deteriorate dramatically. Now this could be normal. It could be temporary. Regardless, the condition of these trees is of great concern to me. One thing I do know is that trees get sunburn when they lose all their leaves & this can result in further problems & even death.
People have told me that my photos of the Fig trees in the July post did not show the full extent of how much beauty was removed by the pruning of these trees. I hope the photos with this post show clearly that these trees are in serious trouble, especially with the high 30s temperatures we have been having & summer hasn’t even started. I just wish they had been left alone. I am not the only person upset & disappointed with what has happened to the trees along here.
Once upon a time there was a Fig tree that lived in a park. It grew in the prime position on the point & overlooked the river. It was a special Fig tree because over many years it grew into a great big green leafy bowl.
The tree was famous in the area. Everyone loved the Fig tree that was like a bowl. People would part the branches & walk inside the canopy & marvel. Many said it reminded them of a green cathedral.
They would put down picnic blankets in the soft natural mulch, eat lunch, read books in the dappled sunlight & watch the river. Some even had a nap. It was a place of stillness – dappled light stillness, except when the birds came to chirp & fight among themselves.
Under the canopy, inside the bowl, you were protected from the sun & the rain, as well as much of the wind. Some said they could happily live inside the tree’s canopy for a while.
Kids used to play inside the leafy bowl. You would often hear shrieks of delight before a child came running out, just to zoom back in again.
No-one except the older locals knows how old the Fig tree is, or how long it has looked like a bowl. This tree has not changed since I have known it, except to grow taller – a Fig tree like none that I have ever seen before.
Then Marrickville Council came & for whatever must-have-been-a-really-good-and-professional-reason, cut three big doors into the canopy.
Some in the community felt incredibly sad knowing that the special Fig tree that looked like a big leafy bowl would never look like this again. I don’t know what to say when they ask me why Council did this & why now, after so many years of the tree looking like a green leafy bowl. I don’t know how to respond when they say Council destroys good things, yet does nothing about the important things, like the plastic bottles in the river. Nor do I know how to help them with their anger because I feel angry too.
Last week Marrickville Council pruned & destroyed the special beauty of the line of Fig trees along the promenade on the other side of Tempe Reserve. See – http://bit.ly/NcYfJd This week they pruned this Fig tree at the point of Tempe Reserve. The Ring of Figs in the centre of the park might be next. They will likely be transformed into stalks with a pompom on top.
You can watch a short video of the Fig tree that looked like a bowl before Marrickville Council visited here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIB4A8fDJgw
The row of Fig trees on the boat harbour side of Tempe Reserve has always been an absolute favourite of mine for a number of reasons. A row of mature Fig trees beside the water is always a good thing. The trees created a fabulous & quite impressive entrance into the park. The trees are healthy too & produce stacks of fruit for birds & flying foxes, but the main reason why I loved these particular trees so much was that most of them had a natural shape.
Public trees with side branches are not so common in Marrickville LGA. I presume that for public liability reasons Council formative prunes most of the public trees. Unlike other Councils, they appear not to like street trees to cascade over the road, except in a few isolated occasions. Most of our public trees are pruned to have upward reaching branches.
The Fig trees in this section of Tempe Reserve used to have branches that cascaded downwards with some touching the ground. Bench seats had been skillfully placed so you could sit in the shade of branches that were a few feet in front of you & above your head allowing you to watch the lovely view of the boats while sitting in the shade. Other benches had full sun, so you always had a choice.
Not only was it extremely picturesque, but also the branches provided much needed shade as well as a break from the wind, which can be punishing in this park.
A large group of older locals, both men & women, come every day to sit, chat & feed the birds in the shade & the protection of the Fig trees here. They come all year round, except when the rain is too heavy. They never use the picnic kiosk area & when I asked why, they said it was too windy, too busy, too loud & too dirty. Here on the Fig tree walk as I call it, you have a great view, protection from the elements & most importantly, peace.
If you were quiet & looked carefully, you could often find shy White-Faced Herons under the Fig trees searching for food among the vast areas of woodchip. You had to look because they are experts at hiding among the low branches & would dissolve into the speckled shadows if they even thought you were looking at them. I’ve stood here unaware of two herons until they were pointed out to me. What I saw was glimpses of grey stepping behind a branch & as I moved trying to get a better look & perhaps a photo, the herons moved around the branch remaining pretty much unseen.
No more dear herons & so sorry to the older people because this area has been changed forever & not for the better.
Marrickville Council chopped off all the cascading branches of the Fig trees so that what is left is a wind tunnel where one can see from one end of Fig tree walk to the other, with the prominent orange lids of the garbage bins on full view.
No more sitting on a secluded bench because there is no more seclusion.
No more shade unless the sun is in the right position & certainly no more herons quietly dipping in & out of the shadows. I could have cried.
The proposed expansion of Marrickville Metro shopping centre has been recently recommended for approval by the NSW Department of Planning. This is interesting as the large number of submissions that were against the proposed expansion organized by local community group Metrowatch far outweighed submissions in support. Of importance is that both Marrickville Council & the Marrickville Chamber of Commerce did not support the expansion of Metro. It is feared that the expansion to almost double in size spells trouble for the area on many fronts; an anticipated 4-million extra shoppers annually would result in 50-60% more traffic as well as extra pollution, noise, littering, garbage trucks, delivery trucks & the impact on our local shopping strips.
Metrowatch have gone into the issues deeply & have listed ways in which you can help try to prevent this DA from getting final approval. See – http://metrowatch.com.au/
I was particularly concerned about the proposed removal of the many mature trees that surround Marrickville Metro. I saw removing these trees as the equivalent of removing a park in terms of carbon sequestration. The trees help improve the air quality by removing CO2 & particulate matter from vehicles, very important with such heavy concentrations of new traffic coming to the area. They add significant beauty, shade the area & make it a pleasant place to walk for pedestrians. Also of vital importance is that the trees provide habitat & food for a wide range of birds & for flying foxes. We don’t have many large trees in Marrickville LGA so we need to keep those that we do have.
The design of the new expanded Metro was 2 great big white blocks with a couple of trees. This was altered on subsequent designs to include more trees. They were always mature Gums, probably Lemon Scented Gums, a lovely tree, but would need at least 3 decades to grow to the size depicted in the artist’s depiction. To lose all those Hills Figs & Brush Box trees seemed unthinkable & would have a massive negative impact on the locality. From being a unique green & leafy shopping mall on the outside, the new expanded Metro would actually decrease the urban forest & remove an important location for biodiversity.
The approved concept design shows that the amount of trees marked for removal has decreased significantly from the original proposal, which is very good. However, there are still issues of concern. The following is what has been recommended for approval regarding the trees. -
- A mature Nettle tree, 7 mature Hills Figs & 7 Acacia trees will be removed – making a total of 15 mature trees to be removed.
- 16 Hills Figs will have selective branch pruning. Shame, because all the Figs had their canopy pruned in 2011. As most of these Figs have up-growing limbs due to previous formative pruning, any further removal of branches will result in a significant diminishment of the canopy. Pruning Figs that are used to shade also puts these trees at increased risk of exposure to the elements & can result in sunscald & moisture stress. Both can result in tree death.
- 8 Lemon-scented Gum trees (Corymbia citriodora) & 2 other Eucalypts on Smidmore Street will have their canopy pruned. Also a shame, as these are phenomenally beautiful trees that add much to the streetscape.
Of concern is the following –
- The historic & veteran Moreton Bay Fig at the front of historic Mill House will be undergo “internal diagnostic testing to determine decay.” I cannot understand why this tree is treated like every other Fig at this location & not actively cared for by the National Trust & Marrickville Council. This Moreton Bay Fig was probably planted around the same time as the historic Mill House that was built in 1860. At around 152-years-old, this would be one of at most a handful of Figs in Marrickville municipality of this vintage. The tree is in an extremely vulnerable situation right next to a busy footpath & road. Before Christmas I received a phone call that a man was climbing this tree putting up fairy lights. The tree also underwent pruning of a number of branches last year & no-one knows why.
This tree will also undergo “further investigation via root trenching to determine extent of root spread & impact on the proposed development.” Why? It is located at the street front in Victoria Road, many metres away from the shopping building itself. Let’s hope a Veteran Tree Specialist Arborist is involved when this happens.
Because of its age, this tree is of historical importance to the whole community & as such should be cared for on an ongoing basis by an Arborist who is a Veteran Tree Specialist. We are lucky that this tree has been retained, but unlucky because it is has not been singled out for the specialist treatment it deserves. There are people who love trees that would travel to see this tree. That alone should interest Metro as these people would likely go into the shopping mall during this visit.
- The large mature Camphor laurel at the rear of the Mill House will undergo “internal diagnostic testing to determine decay.” It does have 2 sections of old decay so we will see how that goes.
- A Brush Box near Mill House will also undergo “internal diagnostic testing to determine decay.”
- 46 mature Hills Figs will undergo “further investigation via root trenching to determine extent of root spread & impact on the proposed development.” I’ve had a general look at the exterior walls of the Metro building & have not seen cracks so I wonder why the need to do any investigative trenching. I found the following information about trenching & it is quite alarming. – “Trenching near a tree can kill almost half its roots. Below ground, root damage is common from excavation & grade changes. Roots may be torn by improper excavation, opening wounds for disease organisms to enter. Fine, absorbing roots are lost by topsoil removal, putting the tree under stress. Structural support is lost by trenching too close to major roots, creating a potential hazard. Bruising or crushing of roots by heavy equipment may not be apparent from above ground.” http://www.treehelp.com/howto/howto-prevent-construction-damage.asp
- Lastly, a 5-metre plus mature Nettle tree that was removed by Metro last year without permission is listed on the plans as “for retention.” Metro should be required to replace this tree with another tree of the equivalent size when mature.
There will be a Planning Assessment Commission Meeting open to the public on Monday 13th February 2012 at Petersham RSL Club, 7 Regent Street Petersham from 1:00pm-8:00pm. If required, the meeting will continue from 3.00pm on Tuesday, 14th February 2012 until all registered speakers are heard. All who put in a submission will have received an invitation to attend & speak at the Planning Assessment Commission Meeting. If you wish to address the panel (Dr Neil Shepherd AM –Chair & Dr John Roseth) you need to register by contacting Ms Sera Taschner (02) 9383-2117 by 4:00pm Wednesday 8th February 2012.
You can download all the reports & the recommendation here – www.pac.nsw.gov.au
I have written previously about the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report here - http://bit.ly/yHM07q
You can watch a short video of the trees of Metro here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAgUvoATtw0
In the Business Papers for tomorrow’s Marrickville Council Meeting Clr Macri asks the following Questions on Notice regarding the removal of trees from private properties across Marrickville LGA for the period 1st July 2010 to 30th June 2011 -
Q: How many applications for tree removal were submitted?
54 part approved (whatever this means)
Q: How many applications for tree pruning were submitted?
Q: How many applications provided structural engineer’s reports?
Q: How many applications provided arborist’s reports?
Q: How many applications provided plumber’s reports?
Q: How many appeals/reassessment of refused applications for tree removals were made?
It seems like Council does not publish this kind of data as a matter of course. I could not find anything about trees in their 2009/2010 Annual Report. After thinking about this I think the absence of reporting on trees could be due to the following –
- Council has not, until lately, considered trees as public assets with significant value.
- Council can only guess at how many public trees there are in Marrickville LGA. The Tree Inventory, agreed to in the latest Urban Forest Policy, which will take 3 years to complete, will provide this information.
In my opinion, Marrickville Council should publish this information regarding both public & private trees every year in their Annual Report so that the community is properly informed.
Marrickville Council intend to remove a Spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) from outside 8 Ross Street, Dulwich Hill.
Council gives the following reasons for removal:
- “The subject tree has a repeat history of large branch failure & there remains the possibility that the tree may further shed branches in the future.
- The subject tree in its current condition presents an unacceptable risk of harm or injury to persons & property.”
Council say they will replace this Spotted gum with another Spotted gum, but not when they will do this. The weblink for further information did not work at the time of writing (error 404).
There is evidence of 5 branches coming off this tree. The remaining parts of the branches are jagged & the tree looks injured. I haven’t seen branch loss looking like this before, but this isn’t surprising. The tree looks to be in good health. It’s one of 2 tall trees in the street & has a girth of around 1.8 – 2 metres.
I think there are a number of issues here. My research came up with a report written in 2003 by Hornsby Council who refused an application to remove a 18-metre Spotted gum street tree that was dropping branches into the front garden of a property because the tree was healthy. Hornsby Council refused to remove the tree even though they knew they could be liable, especially if property damage occurred in the near future. See – http://www2.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/ebp/ebp2003.nsf/bb43e613b7cc52adca256cbc0011e27b/500e6046a9fef4f2ca256dd6008284e6?OpenDocument
What I did find out was that Spotted gums are self pruning (meaning they drop branches as a natural characteristic) & have lighter branches than other species of Corymbia. They are often deemed as suitable for use as street trees & have a life expectancy over 40 years. Now I love my Gums, but I would ask – why are they deemed suitable if they are known for dropping branches? Marrickvlle Council is using a Spotted gum to replace this one once they chop it down.
The technical name is limb shear & the branches of this particular tree certainly looked sheared. It looks like a rope has been slung over the branch & pulled until the branch tore away from the trunk. Shear is a good description.
Apparently there are a number of causes of limb shear & no single cause. Limb shear can happen as part of the behaviour of certain species, including the Spotted gum & because of drought or compaction of the soil. An arborist can check limbs regularly to look for obvious weakness showing in the branch & prune to prevent the limb falling. Problem is Marrickville Council doesn’t prune street trees, they chop them down when branches fall.
Yesterday I learnt that Leichhardt Council checks every single one of their public trees every 2 years & prunes as needed. Their Urban Forest Policy says the removal of a public tree is the last option.
Most of the Council’s around Sydney have thousands more Eucalypts & Corymbia’s as street trees than does Marrickville LGA. A quick Google search choosing Councils at random, showed me that Ryde, Hornsby, Newcastle, Randwick & City of Sydney all prune street trees. This was enough for me to show that pruning is considered a norm.
I would prefer that Parks & Gardens were given sufficient money in the budget to allow them to establish a regular tree maintenance program & prune street trees to bring Marrickville Council up to the standard of other Councils. Perhaps then, many more trees could be caught before they become dangerous to allow the canopy to remain. The cycle of chopping a tree down once it has reached a good height means we will never really have tall trees or increase the canopy beyond small stature trees.
The deadline for submissions is Friday 27th May 2011. I will not be putting in a submission.
Marrickville Council is planning an overhaul of historic Petersham Park in Petersham. I’ve done my best to translate the plans. There is a Legend on the side of the plans offering a range of symbols in various shades of green & one has to scroll around the map trying to find the symbols. It would be so much easier if there was list of what will be removed, replaced etc & any trees to be removed coloured red. Perhaps that would look too imposing, especially on this map. I apologize in advance if I have made a mistake translating the plans.
The Petersham Park Masterplan recommends –
- removing 8 of the 26 large Camphor laurel trees from the magnificent memorial avenue of trees that make the Brighton Street entrance.
- removing 4 of the 10 large Camphor laurels along Wentworth Street.
- removing 5 of the 7 large trees near the entry to the Fanny Durak Pool & the playground. That will mean another shadecloth structure. Council are removing these trees because the soil is compacted. Soil compaction can be treated without removing trees. Axing these trees is simply the most expedient option.
- removing 4 of the 12 large trees along Station Street.
- removing 2 other large trees inside the park.
- removing 7 of the 14 large trees from the boundary of West Street. Apart from
1 tree with significant dieback, I cannot see why these trees need to be removed. They have been badly pruned, but so have the majority of the trees in the park. Most look like champagne glasses because of Council’s long-standing policy of pruning all side branches. The plans recommend not replacing trees along West Street to offer unrestricted visual access into the park. Unrestricted for who? The third storey across the road? Whether on foot or in a car you can easily see into Petersham Park. No substantial trees will also ensure that the traffic noise from ultra-busy West Street would fully infiltrate the park.
- If I understand the Legend correctly, the ultimate recommendation is to remove all the trees along West Street. If that is correct, the remaining side of the once glorious avenue of trees will be lost. (Last January 2011 St Vincent de Paul Society completed the removal of 31 trees that formed the other side of the avenue of trees. See – http://savingourtrees.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/the-lost-trees-of-lewisham/ )
- All up 30 very large trees are to be removed.
- 38 new trees are to be planted. Sounds great, except they will be small stature ornamental Crepe myrtle & Cape Chestnut trees. Many new tree plantings fail so even whether these 38 trees survive remains to be seen. Figs & large Eucalypts have been suggested for the Brighton & Wentworth Street as replacement for the trees removed in these sections.
- Cape Chestnuts & Crepe Myrtles are to be planted in the space between West Street & the oval to offer colour. I am rather horrified that Crepe myrtle trees are popping up across Marrickville LGA when there are many better choices of small native trees that offer colour as well as food for wildlife.
- Very small spaces will be planted with groundcover for Bandicoot habitat where trees have been removed on West Street. Although habitat for the critically endangered Long-nosed Bandicoot is of paramount importance, especially now that their habitat across the road at St Vincent de Paul Society has been destroyed, the size of the proposed habitat is tokenistic at best & keeps the Bandicoots near the very busy road.
- Council also plans to upgrade the playground, repair the stonework, repair the paths, add some lighting, add some garden beds, replant the existing garden beds & add a decorative picket fence to part of the Brighton Street entry – all good.
There are many wonderful things about Petersham Park. It is remarkably different from most parks in Marrickville LGA in that it has many very large trees as well as large shade-producing trees throughout the park itself, not just around the perimeter. Removing so many large trees at one time would be devastating. To remove half of the trees on West Street only to replace with groundcover & add some Crepe myrtles further in would to my mind, reduce this side of the park to ‘ordinary.’
I know parks have to be maintained & Petersham Park, even for its beauty is showing signs of neglect, but in my opinion, the bulk of the large mature trees are doing well. The paths, the playground & the garden beds are what needs work & yes, some trees need to be removed, but I wonder about the choices of trees. The Prunus looks scraggly & a couple of Fig trees look quite weird & unhealthy. I could have removed 20 trees, however, only 1 of those trees matched the trees Council is recommending for removal.
It’s obvious that some trees are to be removed simply because they are mature or that removing the trees will allow for the new fashion of having clear unobstructed views deep into parks. To me, that’s not a good enough reason to remove healthy mature trees which are doing great work in sequestering large amounts of CO2, removing particulate matter, improving air quality as well as providing shade & beauty to the area. Mature doesn’t mean dying.
There are dead street trees all over Marrickville LGA, some that have been sitting there for 18 months or more. Then there is the borer infestation of Mahoney Reserve & the 6 dead
Poplar trees that are still standing. These things make me wonder why so much money will be spent removing so many trees in Petersham Park when very few of them are showing obvious signs of deterioration. They are mature trees & for that very reason, quite spectacular. I’d rather the dead & dying trees elsewhere be removed than 30 mature beautiful trees from the one park. Council needs to start to grow replacement trees (further in the park if they are to be Fig trees to allow for the canopy) & when they have grown to a decent size, only then do a graduated removal of the other trees.
I recognize that Marrickville Council wants to do the best thing for the park & it is good that community consultation was offered. However, the plans for Petersham Park remind me of the intention in the draft tree strategy policy that was so poorly received by Councillors in early 2010 & which has been redrafted. That report spoke negatively about mature trees & proposed cutting down 1,000 trees per year for 5 years. Is Council still pursuing this kind of goal?
Any written feedback to Marrickville Council from the community is due by 28th February 2011. The plan can be downloaded here (5MB) – http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/getinvolved/consultations/petershamparkmasterplan.html?s=2122293019
I made a video of Petersham Park here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIKH59R7BnE
1. In 2010 Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Council in South Australia were very unhappy about energy company ETSA’s pruning of
their street trees. In response they commissioned a study of 1,613 street trees by Arborists Treevolution. The company monitored 811 street trees that were pruned by ETSA & found that, “most trees had foliage trimmed in excess of the 2.5m distance from the powerline as set out in ETSA guidelines, with only 2% of the trees trimmed to a satisfactory standard.” Pretty shocking considering the tree numbers. The report also said, “The level of experience & qualification could also be questioned … & the level attained by the cutting crews well below that accepted as best practice within the arboricultural industry.” The Council acknowledged that ETSA has a legal obligation to prune street trees in the area, however, they thought ETSA’s method of pruning caused long-term damage to the trees. I hope more Councils decide to challenge & monitor tree pruning practices by energy companies. The community has been unhappy about their work for some considerable time & need their Councils to stand up for their trees. http://messenger-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/pruning-gets-a-poor-mark/
2. Residents of Monash Parade Croydon were very upset with Energy Australia after they “tore through (21) brush box trees that had stood for about 80 years. …it looked like a cyclone passed by with some trees losing almost 70% of their foliage.” “Energy Australia confirmed to The Courier that the trimming had breached guidelines.”
3. Waverley Local Court fined a resident $19,000 for cutting through what he described as a ‘fat root’ of an old Brush Box growing outside his home. The tree was under a tree protection order. Because of the damage caused by the resident, Waverley Council had to remove the tree. Magistrate Milledge described the vandalism to the tree as ‘disgraceful.’ ”Trees not only beautify otherwise stark urban streets, but they offset carbon emissions, provide shade & attract native wildlife.” It was great to see that the judicial assessment went toward the value of the tree & its loss to the community. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/an-unkind-cut-that-led-to-a-record-fine-20110201-1acgo.html
4. Yarra Council in Melbourne are seeking whoever it was who
poisoned 2 mature elms on Napier Street Fitzroy & a flowering pear tree on Egan Street Richmond. “Mayor Alison Clarke said killing trees in inner-city streets was a disgraceful act. Natural vegetation & wildlife are scarce enough as it is in a place like Yarra & are highly valued for that reason. So for someone to set out to destroy those things is an extremely selfish act that deprives our community of what is rightfully theirs to enjoy & appreciate.” If caught, the vandal could face a fine of up to $2,000. A low fine might be a measure that allows room for a culprit to still want to risk for cutting a tree illegally. Maybe Yarra Council should think about raising the level of fines for such wrongdoing. $19,000 would not be something one easily risks coping. http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/trees-poisoned-in-fitzroy-richmond/
5. An Adelaide tree lopper has just been fined $22,500 for cutting down
a River Red Gum at Kilburn in April 2010. “He said he did not care about the fine because large gum trees were dangerous & the law regarding so-called significant trees was inflexible. Mr Carlin said he had been working in the industry for 20 years & had come to know trees. He said that in his experience, some council arborists did not do thorough analyses of trees when preparing reports on whether tree removal should be approved. He said the tree – with a 3.4m circumference – had dropped a branch on a building on Churchill Rd, loosening asbestos.” He wants no Eucalypts in suburban areas. I wonder what the Australian Capital Territory, which has thousands at public places, would say about that? http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/fine-but-tree-lopper-says-theyre-dangerous/story-fn6ck4a4-1226001087184
6. In a fantastic move City of Sydney Council is planning a community farm in Sydney Park. Residents will be able to grow & sell produce. It’s at the community consultation stage at the moment. http://digitaledition-innercity.innerwestcourier.com.au/ Page 2
7. A report by Aerial Acquisitions found that over the last few years up to 8,500 hectares of NSW forests may have been approved for logging when they were actually old growth forests & should have been preserved. Many of the forests contained native animal & plant species classified as vulnerable. Forests in Macleay, Dorrigo & around the Hastings river were deemed the worst affected. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/conservation/flaws-in-surveying-permit-logging-in-protected-forests-20110120-19y3u.html
8. Brigidine College in St Ives intends to remove much of the work completed last year that was paid for by a $200,000 grant from the federal government’s Building the Education Revolution program to build a car park. To do this they will remove 50 trees. Last year they removed nine trees. http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/private-school-calls-in-the-bulldozers-to-demolish-new-building-work-20110204-1agvd.html
9. If you are interested in Eucalypts, EUCLID is a computer program that covers identifying features of all 894 eucalypts of Australia. Available since 2006, it was produced by the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research at the Australian National Herbarium. EUCLID covers Angophora, Corymbia as well as Eucalyptus. http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/cd-keys/euclid3/index.html
While walking in Tempe Reserve recently, I noticed that 4 of the 5 Fig trees along a single path had light poles positioned directly next to them. Three of the Figs were young & will grow significantly bigger. All will encroach or envelop the light pole & will require pruning to free it up. Over time, pruning will result in at least 3 of these Fig trees looking uneven & lob sided. Already the branches of 2 of these trees have passed the light pole.
These trees should have been able to grow into a beautiful & natural shape because they are in a large park where there is plenty of room for them to grow naturally.
I don’t understand why the light poles were installed directly next to each tree & not in the many metres of open space between the trees.
One day someone with authority will come along & say these trees are causing problems with the lighting & must be removed. The community will be wondering why the problem was caused in the first place.