A MOUNT Cotton resident has challenged Redland City Council over the removal of four trees from the verge of a significant street in his estate.
Four weeping figs (Ficus benjamina) were removed by council contractors from the frontage of 2 Sanctuary Drive, Mount Cotton, in September, causing uproar among residents.
Chris Scroope has lived in the area since the 1980s and saw the trees planted decades ago.
“Sanctuary Drive has a canopy of fig trees going over the entire drive,” Mr Scroope said.
“Redland City Council put a sign up just before the school holidays saying they were monitoring the trees’ health.
“Over the school holidays, they knocked four of these fig trees down, removed them completely.”
Council erected a sign that read, “Council’s arborists are monitoring” prior to the removal of the trees, while a notice on Redland City Council’s website stated the trees were being removed due to “causing significant damage to surrounding infrastructure”.
A council spokesperson told Redland City News, “The trees were removed following a community notice period, based on a risk assessment and arborist advice.
“The tree roots were causing damage to infrastructure including a driveway, gate, telecommunications pillar, retaining wall and making parts of the road reserve, and Energex utilities, unsafe for pedestrians and a continuing risk.
“Unfortunately, there were no options that allowed for retaining the trees while also removing the risk to people and property.”
Mr Scroope sought independent reports from a utility locating service and arborist which he claims confirm the services near the trees were not impeded and surrounding trees were in healthy condition.
He also claimed building covenants were placed on the properties in the area, including that if a tree is removed from the nature reserve footpath, it must be replaced with a like-for-like tree, but the council spokesperson confirmed council was not aware of any tree protection order or covenant binding council in the matter.
Gary White was the council’s shire planner at the time and expressed his surprise at the removal of the trees.
“It was an estate that was put together very much on the basis of environmental credentials,” he said.
“The whole notion of protecting vegetation, the whole notion of crafting a design in a particular way, was all focused around the environmental quality aspects that went with the estate.
“You have to go back to basic council responsibilities; the day-to-day administration of parks and footpaths would take into account the removal of trees, but why would you remove four trees?
“From an aesthetic point of view, it looks like a kid who’s lost a tooth in a football match.
“It just doesn’t make sense to take out four trees unless there was some inherent problem which, as I understand, there isn’t.”
Both Mr White and Mr Scroope recalled tree root barrier systems being installed at the time of planting to prevent damage to nearby service infrastructure.
Over 1100 angered residents completed a survey expressing their disappointment in the removal of the trees.
Council has since planted two Tulipwood (Harpullia pendula) trees in the location.
“This tree will grow to about 10-15m in this location, providing a canopy for shade with a non-invasive root system,” the council spokesperson said.
“Due to the presence of underground services, street lighting and private infrastructure, only two trees will be planted.”
Mr Scroope said he was not satisfied with the replacement trees and had engaged environmental solicitors who would be seeking four like-for-like trees be replanted on the curb by council.
“If there are no services affected, they’re not poisoned, they’re all in good condition, they haven’t pulled them down for a valid reason and that’s why we’re going to take them to court,” he said.
