Notes of meeting between Banyule Council representatives and Rosanna Parklands Protection Association (RoPPA) Thursday 21 October 2004 re ‘Safety Issues with Six Tress on Western Boundary’

The meeting was held at the Council Offices, Turnham Avenue, Rosanna at 7.30 pm

Council representatives present:
Councillor Jenny Mulholland, Councillor Tom Melican,
Scott Walker (Manager Development Services), Graeme Lewis (Planning Arborist), Richard Warren Smith (Tree Care Coordinator)
An apology was received from Simon McMillan and Scott Walker took the chair.

RoPPA representatives: Sue McKinnon (Acting Vice-President), Elizabeth Sleigh, Jim Murphy, Leah Franklin, Barbara Hapgood, Margaret James (notetaker), Leigh Stone (arborist commissioned by RoPPA)

Observer: Kevin Ayrey (postgraduate student, Landscape Design)

Introduction

Scott Walker described the purpose of the meeting – to provide information on Council’s proposed action re 6 (formerly 7) trees on the western perimeter of the Rosanna Parklands, following further advice received from Burnley College arborist Philip Kenyon, Senior Lecturer in Arboriculture (copies distributed). He referred also to in-house assessment by Graeme Lewis in response to the report by Greenwood.

Council action proposed for the 6 trees

Graeme Lewis (Council arborist)

Graeme outlined the assessments provided by Kenyon and described the action to be taken. He noted that Kenyon had confirmed the view that these trees were in a poor condition, but he had added that the suggestion that the stumps be utilised as habitat niches for fauna.
(Numbering of trees below follows Greenwood Report – tree numbers are marked on west side of each tree in the park).

Tree no. 148 (Euc.viminalis)
This tree had recently been pruned by Connex. The tree to be retained. Remove whole north stem and prune remaining crown. Inspect on annual basis.

Tree no. 197 (Euc.cladocalyx)
This tree will be retained, but the crown be substantially reduced then further reduced every three years. The tree be reduced to a trunk and poisoned to prevent regrowth after 5 years. Annual inspection required.

Tree no.206 (Euc.cladocalyx)
Poison tree. Reduce crown to short stubs using a “grab” method to increase surface area for fungal attack making hollow formation faster. Poison stubs to prevent regrowth.

Tree 208 (Euc.cladocalyx)
Poison tree, retain large stump – unlikely to affect growth of nearby saplings.

Tree 231 (Euc.cladocalyx)
Large stem from base of trunk be retained and allowed to grow. Remainder of tree crown to be reduced to short stubs using “grab” method. Shoots from stubs to be suppressed.

Tree no. 242 (Euc.cladocalyx)
Poison tree, reduce crown to short stubs using grab method, poison stubs.

Council Comments

Council proposes to proceed with the works on the trees, as outlined above. This was necessary because of:
1. Safety issues (e.g fallen branches)
2. Effect on long-term treescape. Not desirable to fence trees in the park permanently, as it is too actively used. What is going to replace these trees?

Council also said that
1. the temporary fence has ensured that there are no safety issues in the interim. (until the works are carried out)
2. If the park were a “bushland” setting, they would consider isolating the trees and retaining them
3. All works referred to above to be carried out by professional arborists

The unsatisfactory pruning of the trees by Connex contractors was deplored. The pruning was done by contractors to satisfy electrical safety requirements, not to arborist standards. Council said that because the trees were allowed to reach within 3m of the high voltage line, then they were not allowed to prune them. If trees had been addressed before they reached this point, council would have been allowed to prune them properly, using qualified arborists.

Discussion

Leigh Stone, Arborist, and Lecturing Arborist at University of Melbourne

· Leigh Stone argued that the removal of the 7 trees would not make the path safe.

· Until the bicycle path was proposed no attention had been paid to the trees.

· Leigh explained that in his view crown reduction was not the best way to manage trees. He later referred to Arborist Greg Moore who agrees with him in this issue.

· Leigh said that the answer is to take the path away from the trees

· It would be better to isolate the trees by mulching 20 – 30 m into the park eastwards from the railway line. This area should then be planted with an understorey of indigenous plants to attract birds. In 20 years, the vegetation would be magnificent.

· He referred to a Supreme Court case, which was recently settled for $2m. in damages after a person was killed by a falling branch from a tree in a caravan park. If the path was built, there would be a potential for failure of other trees.

Replies from Council representatives to various questions included:

· Now that arborist reports had been received on the safety of the trees, Council was obliged to act to reduce liability

· The masterplan was separate from the tree issue and issues relating to the proposed path were not open to discussion

· Council’s tree management was reactive, as there were no funds for systematic assessment and programmed maintenance

· People want to use the park, therefore isolation of the trees not feasible

· In addressing these 6 trees we are not assuming that we are making the area safe, but are addressing the immediate, imminent risks

· Once the 6 trees have been addressed the next 40 will be addressed, followed by the remaining 143 that are listed in the greenwood report as causing hazard to the western path area.

· The reason that the council want the path to remain near the western boundary is a masterplan issue

· The location of the proposed path in the area of the trees to be removed was not yet determined

· the new proposed location of the path and the landscape plan would be available to RoPPA before the VCAT hearing.

· Funding of $160,000 in the budget would have to include planting – see conditions in masterplan.

· Council claimed that the masterplan could be implemented without tree removal.

· The western perimeter path was most heavily used – this was disputed by RoPPA

Tree management in Banyule generally Agreement in the group

It was pointed out that The City of Melbourne has a tree asset register so that a computerised system records its tree population and maintains a schedule of inspection and works for each tree. In addition all works carried out on the trees are recorded in the computer by each contractor.

There was agreement in the group that supported the need for funding to develop a tree asset register, supported by a programmed maintenance strategy with ongoing funding.

Options presented by experts

Sue McKinnon noted that 4 of the 4 arborists reports has suggested as an option, the retention of the trees by isolation of the area.

It was pointed out that retainment of a stump was not accepted as habitat protection by the Habitat Assessment professional commissioned by the Council

The Habitat Assessment report on these trees recommends that the trees be isolated and retained

Further discussion

Scott raised the question of Ellis Stone’s likely reaction to the arborists’ report. It was pointed out that Ellis Stones concepts were not always recorded, but Sue will forward a selection fro an Ellis Stone Book which refers to his battles against Councils to prevent the cutting down of trees.

Elizabeth Sleigh spoke on the desire by RoPPA to be involved in the park in a collaborative way. The isolation strategy suggested by Leigh Stone needed to be considered. The community would be cooperative if properly informed and involved in the action. She emphasised the need for open dialogue and for long-term management of the flora and fauna in the park.

Conclusion

Scott Walker concluded by asking for comments from RoPPA – the date of 8 November was agreed. He reiterated that he would not be offering another meeting.
He reinterated that tree works will be carried out after the comments from RoPPA were received.

Further notes on the arborist reports

Greenwood assessed 261 trees, mostly on the western boundary and recommended removal of 97, and pruning of a further 93.
Only trees considered to be a threat to the railway or users of the path, or those that were considered likely to be impacted by an upgrade of the path, were assessed.

In detailed reports on the trees, he refers to the ‘area use’ as ‘bicycle path’.

He assessed one tree (148) as requiring immediate attention and 6 others (143, 197, 206, 208, 231, 242) as needing attention ‘as soon as practically possible’. He assessed 40 trees requiring attention within 6 months and 143 trees requiring attention within 2 years.

He advises that a tree with a ‘safe useful life expectancy of less than 5 years ‘should be removed unless other considerations require its retention’.

Lewis assessed trees no.143, 148, 206, 208, 231 and 242
He recommends ‘suitable compensatory replacement plantings’ as a condition for the works. He gives as an option, isolate the trees and selectively prune those parts that threaten the adjoining railway easement

Kenyon assessed trees 143, 148, 197, 206, 208, 231, 242.
He advises:
A long term management plan to replace this aging tree population should be developed considering all the complex factors involved. In some of the sites it may be possible to encourage and establish indigenous replacement trees before removing the old senescent trees. A general planting scheme of indigenous under-storey plants in mulched garden beds with the access path winding along outside the eastern edge of these garden beds may be a reasonable consideration.

Discussed at the meeting: 148, 197, 206, 208, 231, 242

Habitat Assessment Report on the 7 trees

Council commissioned Rob Taylor to assess use by fauna and advise on requirements need in order to maintain faunal population.
He advises that height of trees is an essential requirement for the nesting of raptors and advantageous for gliders. Connectivity of the canopy is important.
He recommends that all effort and all other options be investigated before these trees are altered in any shape or form, or removed in their entirety.

• Leigh Stone argued that the removal of the 7 trees would not make the path safe.

• Until the bicycle path was proposed no attention had been paid to the trees.

• Leigh explained that in his view crown reduction was not the best way to manage trees. He later referred to Arborist Greg Moore who agrees with him in this issue.

• Leigh said that the answer is to take the path away from the trees

• It would be better to isolate the trees by mulching 20 – 30 m into the park eastwards from the railway line. This area should then be planted with an understorey of indigenous plants to attract birds.  In 20 years, the vegetation would be magnificent.

• He referred to a Supreme Court case, which was recently settled for $2m. in damages after a person was killed by a falling branch from a tree in a caravan park.  If the path was built, there would be a potential for failure of other trees.

Replies from Council representatives to various questions included

:·        Now that arborist reports had been received on the safety of the trees, Council was obliged to act to reduce liability·        The masterplan was separate from the tree issue and issues relating to the proposed path were not open to discussion

·        Council’s tree management was reactive, as there were no funds for systematic assessment and programmed maintenance

·        People want to use the park, therefore isolation of the trees not feasible

·        In addressing these 6 trees we are not assuming that we are making the area safe, but are addressing the immediate, imminent risks

·        Once the 6 trees have been addressed the next 40 will be addressed, followed by the remaining 143 that are listed in the greenwood report as causing hazard to the western path area

.·        The reason that the council want the path to remain near the western boundary is a masterplan issue

·        The location of the proposed path in the area of the trees to be removed was not yet determined

·        the new proposed location of the path and the landscape plan would be available to RoPPA before the VCAT hearing.

·        Funding of $160,000 in the budget would have to include planting – see conditions in masterplan.

·        Council claimed that the masterplan could be implemented without tree removal

.·        The western perimeter path was most heavily used – this was disputed by RoPPA 

Tree management in Banyule; generally Agreement in the group

It was pointed out that The City of Melbourne has a tree asset register so that a computerised system records its tree population and maintains a schedule of inspection and works for each tree.  In addition all works carried out on the trees are recorded in the computer by each contractor. There was agreement in the group that supported the need for funding to develop a tree asset register, supported by a programmed maintenance strategy with ongoing funding.

Options presented by experts Sue McKinnon noted that 4 of the 4 arborists reports has suggested as an option, the retention of the trees by isolation of the area.  It was pointed out that retainment of a stump was not accepted as habitat protection by the Habitat Assessment professional commissioned by the CouncilThe Habitat Assessment report on these trees recommends that the trees be isolated and retained Further discussionScott raised the question of Ellis Stone’s likely reaction to the arborists’ report. It was pointed out that Ellis Stones concepts were not always recorded, but Sue will forward a selection fro an Ellis Stone Book which refers to his battles against Councils to prevent the cutting down of trees.  Elizabeth Sleigh spoke on the desire by RoPPA to be involved in the park in a collaborative way.  The isolation strategy suggested by Leigh Stone needed to be considered.  The community would be cooperative if properly informed and involved in the action.  She emphasised the need for open dialogue and for long-term management of the flora and fauna in the park. ConclusionScott Walker concluded by asking for comments from RoPPA – the date of 8 November was agreed.  He reiterated that he would not be offering another meeting.He reinterated that tree works will be carried out after the comments from RoPPA were received.

Further notes on the arborist reports.

Greenwood assessed 261 trees, mostly on the western boundary and recommended removal of 97, and pruning of a further 93.  Only trees considered to be a threat to the railway or users of the path, or those that were considered likely to be impacted by an upgrade of the path, were assessed.In detailed reports on the trees, he refers to the ‘area use’ as ‘bicycle path’.He assessed one tree (148) as requiring immediate attention and 6 others (143, 197, 206, 208, 231, 242) as needing attention ‘as soon as practically possible’.  He assessed 40 trees requiring attention within 6 months and 143 trees requiring attention within 2 years. He advises that a tree with a ‘safe useful life expectancy of less than 5 years ‘should be removed unless other considerations require its retention’. 

Lewis assessed trees no.143, 148, 206, 208, 231 and 242He recommends ‘suitable compensatory replacement plantings’ as a condition for the works. He gives as an option, isolate the trees and selectively prune those parts that threaten the adjoining railway easement

Kenyon assessed trees 143, 148, 197, 206, 208, 231, 242.  He advises: A long term management plan to replace this aging tree population should be developed considering all the complex factors involved.  In some of the sites it may be possible to encourage and establish indigenous replacement trees before removing the old senescent trees.  A general planting scheme of indigenous under-storey plants in mulched garden beds with the access path winding along outside the eastern edge of these garden beds may be a reasonable consideration.Discussed at the meeting: 148, 197, 206, 208, 231, 242

Habitat Assessment Report on the 7 trees

Council commissioned Rob Taylor to assess use by fauna and advise on requirements need in order to maintain faunal population.He advises that height of trees is an essential requirement for the nesting of raptors and advantageous for gliders. Connectivity of the canopy is important. He recommends that all effort and all other options be investigated before these trees are altered in any shape or form, or removed in their entirety.