I received an email from Mayor Ashley Hall stating the following about the ERC decision to remove the two heritage plane trees in End St.
The key reasoning for their decision is as follows:
“Council’s decision reflects practical, on-the-ground issues that we have been managing for some time. These include repeated damage to the footpath, encroachment on nearby infrastructure, and concerns raised by adjacent property owners. While some of these issues may be manageable in the short term, the long-term costs and risks associated with maintaining these particular trees were considered unsustainable.”
Firstly, what is the repeated footpath damage?
A nine year-old repair in current excellent condition is not evidence of ‘repeated footpath damage’.
Secondly, ‘encroachment on nearby infrastructure’ seems odd when a root barrier was installed in the past decade, as requested by the owner of the building in front of the trees when he historically requested retention of the trees.
As with other trees in the street an ‘encroachment’ issue might pertain to canopy overhang, but this is with every mature tree on every street in Deniliquin ... do all overhanging street tree canopies equate to tree removal? Clearly not.
Thirdly, the Mayor’s other critical reason for the ERC decision is ‘concerns raised by adjacent property owners’.
Concerns. What are the concerns? Why are these ‘concerns’ not provided? What is the reason for secrecy about ‘concerns’?
Finally, the Mayor states on behalf of the council that one of the critical conclusions arrived at by ERC investigations is that ‘long-term costs and risks associated with maintaining these particular trees were considered unsustainable’.
What, therefore, is the calculated cost long term of maintaining the plane trees in End St compared to the George St plane tree, or the Moreton Bay figs in the Waring Gardens, or the historic pine trees at the court house and the hospital?
Who has determined this, and what calculation or measure has been used?
Twenty minutes on a blower vac and rake to the green bin during leaf drop season is the weekly ’cost’ to the council.
If I’m capable of doing that each week, then surely the council can do that to enable the community to benefit from the shade and beauty of these wonderful heritage trees.
My questions have been simple. The responses, however, are inadequate.
To sign off on the destruction of the End St plane trees without any measured factual evidence is appallingly negligent.
I thought the community was receiving a new council of best practice.
Clearly, the majority of the community is being failed by its representatives, who seem in favour of the undisclosed preferences of one or two people.
Yours etc.
Josephine Duffy
End St, Deniliquin resident
9°C