SA parliament extract document
How true Trev.
But I must say that most southeners (Melbourne & Sydney) that come here to work are appalled by what they see and are repeatedly asked to do .... it's far more frequent here.
There's another problem though.
Bill Bloggs puts into the council to have a tree removed, council says no, tree fails and then there's a lawsuit holding the council responsible. So councils have erred on the side of caution and let a lot of removals go through.
Gold Coast City Council asks for replacement planting, usually 2 for each tree removed, but of course who checks or cares right.
Now some councils take it upon themselves to go out and assess the trees (risky) and other councils ask for an arborist report. Problem is ... is the arborist being honest or just trumping it up? Is he competant enough to assess the tree? On the other hand is the council arbo erring on the side of caution and removing too many?
So, what it all boils down to is facts for reports. And that's something that you dont see enough of, lots of biased opinions but where's the facts? Facts would be evidence of decay, vta symtoms of failure, wall thicknesses, etc ... in other words a thorough job backed with data.
If the tree is then retained, with or without works according to report and fails in a storm it could be considered an act of God because it could be reasonable to assume that it may have failed anyway.
I believe in Germany failures above
force 8 are considered Acts of God. However there's another school of thought that says there were VTA symptoms that could have been mediated and the failure not occured ... so depends on your lawyer.
So, whilst we are a long way off a perfect world with relation to management of our urban forests it's important to do your best, and if there's ambiguities then it's up to us to change them.
I pointed out to a lady a really bad included gum, bleeding from the union and had huge wingnuts or elephant ears. She asked how much to remedy it, anywhere between $500 to a $1000 depending on what she wanted out of the options .... she scoffed and said "oh well, it'll most likely come down in a storm and insurance will pay". So in this instance regardless if it were force 8 or more I would consider her negligent as the hazard could have been mediated.
Tree owners need to take responsibility for their trees. Tree people (arborists) better know their chit or get sued!
I've had clients wanting a tree report condemning a perfectly healthy tree, I simply replied i cannot rec removal and the trees healthy as with no VTA symptoms to warrant it's removal ... they get the chits and I walk, simple... and I've even informed the councils so they know about it if a report gets tabled full of BS.
Then you say, just poison it, to hell with the rules.
You'll never catch the perp right, cause it's the home-owner or possibly the neighbour. If you had a bond held by the council it wouldn't be fair to take it as it may have been the neighbour that killed it but no smoking gun right?
So then what? I have one exactly like this right now, cutting it down next week. It was protected but now it's dead ... has dirty great drill holes in it! Who done it, the tenant, the neighbour, the landlord ???? All you can do is enforce a replant .... still puts the homeowner out though.
The Hon. R.B. SUCH: There is nothing wrong with Wingfield, if that is what takes your fancy. I hope that, if I ever retire, I do not reach the point where I am obsessed about leaves. All members have had constituents come in to their offices and say, `There are leaves in the reserve across the road.' I am not aware of anyone being hurt by a falling leaf—but maybe I have lived a sheltered life! We hear all these excuses and reasons for removing trees because people have built far too close to them. It should never have been allowed.
Another big issue is that, in order to avoid liability, councils err on the side of caution and say, `Yes, that tree will have to come out.' We have just had a big fight over a tree in Heatherwood Drive. When it came down to the crunch, I said to the council, `Have you considered pruning it?' and, in the end, that is what it will do. It is a 400 or 500-year-old red gum; it is a magnificent tree. It turned out that one the neighbours did not like the leaves. I had constituents in tears when the tree was under threat, and in tears of joy when the tree was saved as a result of pruning.
The point I am making is that we have it partly right, but we do not have it quite right, in terms of how we deal with the management of trees. I am not saying that people cannot remove a tree; we have to manage them. That is the differ?ence between conservation, which is wise use and preserva?tion, where you do not do such things, and manage?ment: we have to manage trees. Sometimes trees have to come down. However, we need a regime that is sensible and appropriate, where qualified people give advice—not Johnny the tree lopper coming in and saying, `That tree has borers in it.' They nearly all have borers in them; that is how birds, insects and other creatures survive.
source:-
http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/catalog/hansard/2006/ha/wh220606.ha.htm
Interesting reading, and that's from SA parliament logs.
