You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘public tree removal Tempe’ tag.
Inner West Council has given notice that they intend to remove a Narrow-leafed red ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) opposite 6 Tramway Avenue Tempe.
Council gives the following reasons for removal –
- “Tree has significant crack in the main trunk causing it to be structurally unsound.
- The tree poses an unacceptable level of risk to the public and property.”
Council says they will replace with a Red Iron Bark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) as part of the 2017 Street Tree Planting Program between May & September.
The deadline for submissions is Friday 3rd March 2017.
Marrickville Council says, “Approximately 100 trees have been identified in the Street Tree Inventory as posing an unacceptable level of risk to public and property. These trees will be removed in April–May and replacement trees planted in May–June 2014. Plantings will be guided by the Draft Street Tree Master Plan, which will be available for community comment in mid-April 2014.”
The actual number is 109 trees to be removed. I thank Council for including the reports. I have listed the number of trees assessed as posing a low & very low risk of harm for interest. This does not mean that the tree looks good.
The suburbs are as follows with a link to Council document, which locates the tree & provides a short report as to why it is to be removed.
CAMPERDOWN – 4 trees to be removed. 1 tree was assessed as low risk of harm & 2 very low risk of harm. See – http://bit.ly/1dCgDGC
DULWICH HILL – The document shows that 17 trees are to be removed, but I could only find 16 located on the map. 6 trees were assessed as low risk of harm & 6 very low risk of harm.
One tree that I would not be removing is the poisoned Hill’s Fig outside 1 Margaret Street Dulwich Hill. This is one of two mature Figs that were poisoned in June/July 2011. Canterbury Council has a very proactive & powerful no-nonsense approach to tree vandalism. They make the vandalized tree safe, even if just leaving the trunk & then nail signs to it that say, “This tree has been poisoned.” This ensures that the tree is safe, does not reward the vandal & provides ongoing education for the community. I’ll bet that people think twice about poisoning a public tree if they know they will be living with it for a decade.
This tree has a 1 in 1,440,000 risk of harm & a “low potential for failure,” so leaving it in place will not be placing the community in danger. Any Council that makes a strong response is being proactive to prevent more vandalism in my opinion.
A Giant Honey myrtle outside 59 Riverside Crescent (photo on left) is assessed as visually poor, but looks like a nice tree to me. All that is wrong with it is a codominant trunk (two or more main stems) & canopy extended branches. I don’t understand why it is being removed, especially as the report says its risk of harm is “very low” at 1 in 59,040,000. This article explains why codominant trunks & included bark presents a risk of failure – http://bit.ly/1nPiAJu
For the report see – http://bit.ly/1dddUZp
ENMORE – 8 trees to be removed, though only 5 shown on the map. 3 trees were
assessed as a low risk of harm & two a very low risk of harm.
Council plans to remove a very young Spotted gum (photo at left) that is not under powerlines, with a low failure potential & a 1 in 59,040,000 risk of harm because it has unstable roots. How can they tell whether the roots are unstable & why not feed, mulch & properly stake it? Surely the tree will stabilize itself given some support? If it is girdled or the roots have been cut, then this is not good. See – http://bit.ly/1dmfKrh
LEWISHAM – 13 trees to be removed. Information is missing about one of the trees. 3 trees were assessed as very low risk & 2 assessed as low risk.
Finally a street tree outside 80 Victoria Street (photo on left) that the community begged be taken down is going to be removed. Interestingly it is assessed at a 1 in 18 billion risk of harm, despite having a “very poor” structure & “heavy trunk decay.” This is the least risky tree in the report.
I’ve seen this tree myself after residents wrote to me & it concerned me greatly. The tiny tree next to it, which also was heavily affected by borers, was removed. See my post – http://bit.ly/1gLC7kh For the report see – http://bit.ly/1m0dZ2G
MARRICKVILLE – 24 trees to be removed. I could only find 20 of these marked on the map. 6 trees were assessed as low risk of harm & 9 very low risk of harm. See –
NEWTOWN – 9 trees to be removed. 1 tree was assessed as a low risk of harm & another as a very low risk of harm. See – http://bit.ly/1rfAaWm
PETERSHAM – 15 trees to be removed. The document is missing information about one of the trees to be removed. 4 trees were assessed as very low risk of harm & 2 assessed as low risk of harm.
A Narrow-leaved Peppermint outside 25 John Street (photo on left) was assessed as “visually poor,” when to me it looks stunning in the photo. On the next page is a photo of a very sick looking Brittle gum outside 53 Station Street that was also assessed as visually poor. The John Street tree is assessed as a 1 in 590,400 risk of harm & “low risk” category, yet it is being removed because of damage to the trunk & major limb failure (a branch fell). Damage to tree trunks around Marrickville LGA is very common. I wonder whether reduction pruning could be an option to save this significant & what looks to be healthy asset?
Another Narrow-leaved Peppermint outside 19 John Street (photo on left) was assessed as visually poor, but also looks like a very
nice tree to me. It was assessed as having a 1 in 5,904,000 risk of harm & a “very low” risk category, yet it is being removed because of some canopy deadwood. To me, this is choosing to remove a healthy, safe tree instead of pruning the deadwood. See – http://bit.ly/1gLDpfd
STANMORE – The map says 17 trees are to be removed, but only 14 are included in the report. 3 trees were assessed as low risk of harm & 1 very low risk of harm.
One of the trees, a Narrow-leaved Peppermint outside 95 Cavendish Street has been poisoned. As I said earlier, I would not be removing this whole tree, rewarding the vandal & losing the opportunity to educate the community. I suspect any new planting will not survive either.
Cavendish Street used to be an amazingly leafy street, but has lost so many tall & large trees over the last 4-years. See – http://bit.ly/1dCiNpN
TEMPE – 2 trees to be removed. Both were assessed as a very low risk of harm. See – http://bit.ly/1rfAkgl
A new thing that I learnt through reading these documents is that a tree has problems if it has extended branches. Maybe this explains why so many of our street trees look as though they are all pointing to the sky & have so few side branches.
The next step for the community is to assess the replacement species in the Street Tree Masterplan & be active in having a say when we are given an opportunity.
Marrickville Council has given notice that they intend to remove a Tallow Wood (Eucalyptus microcorys) outside number 37 Edwin Street Tempe.
Council gives the following reasons for removal –
- “Tree had a significant limb failure due to high winds & an included branch junction (poor branch attachment) & is now unsafe due to a large exposed wound & lack of structural wood to support the upper canopy.
- Many upper branches have borer damage & are also included & are susceptible to failure.”
Council says they will replace with another Tallow Wood (Eucalyptus microcorys) during 2013 planting season.
This tree was not included in the list of proposed street trees for removal for Tempe in the recent Tree Inventory.
The tree lost a branch leaving a large hole essentially halving the trunk. This means that the top half of the tree is not sufficiently supported & this is easy to see. There is also a large area of visible borer damage in the upper trunk. I will not be writing a submission.
The deadline for any written submission ends on Friday 5th April 2013 – firstname.lastname@example.org