REPRESENTATION: DA0031/2025 Removal of Bunya Pine Tree ... 218 Charles St.
Firstly, it needs to be said that this tree over a very long time has gathered around it a rather large Community of Ownership and Interest and in evidence of that the question of its management falls to the city’s Councillors. Councillors are the representatives of those who claim a layer of ‘ownership and/or interest’. Consistent with this I make this representation asking Councillors to consider several important issues pertinent to this tree’s status in its CULTURALlandscape given that it is a ‘significant tree’ within it.
Moreover, for many this tree is something of a HERITAGE LANDMARKtree for Launceston and its loss, should that happen now, would represent a significant loss far beyond any pragmatic concerns without diminishing them and their relative significance.
Somehow the words of Napoleon Bonaparte resonate here … “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.”
CONSIDERATIONS
• The tree’s age is not insignificant in that it was deliberately planted to be a feature in Launceston’s evolving CULTURALlandscape in a colonial cum settler context and possibly a century ago; and
• In the time that that this tree has stood where it stands it has been, and remains to be, a PLACEmaker and a PLACEmarker; and
• The tree’s ‘values’ are held by and defined by a network of networked people who share in the ‘pace’s’PLACEmakeing and the PLACEmarking; and
• Currently, one of the tree’s most significant values is the CO2 invested in its materiality in the context of the ‘climate emergency’ that is upon us and that this impacts upon every human, in every way, and all the time – in reality and symbolically; and
• The tree’s ‘relative health’, given its endemic origin, is sound and healthy and does not present any apparent risk of becoming diseased and thus enhancing any risk factor in prospect; and
• The tree’s ‘impact’ upon its adjoining built structures may well be deemed to significant but it is an open question as to it being manageable or unmanageable and especially so given the lack of an engineer’s report as a component of the development application. Indeed, as this DA is presented Councillors might well this as a ‘truth-by-assertion’; and
• The tree’s ‘impact’ upon boundary structures and adjoining streetscaping has not been deemed to be either manageable or unmanageable and in what context and thus subjective aesthetics to one side this is not a compelling factor worthy of consideration; and
• The ‘impact’ of the tree’s large cones falling and injuring a hapless passer-bye has been asserted albeit that many arborists will tell you that the risk of injury from falling limbs and the cones of many conifers is something in the order of one in five million. In any event the mitigation of the risk here is quite achievable and has been proven as so elsewhere; and
• The ‘proponent/s’ of the tree’s removal have not offered to address in the way the loss of public amenity etc. in any way, whereas in Adelaide that city’s Council has imposed restrictions with ‘cash off-sets’ payable for the purpose tree planting for carbon sequestration on another site – albeit the $amount is relatively small and not linked to the litreage of canopy cover lost; and
• The ‘impact’ of the loss of the tree’s canopy in this case is significant and calculated as $1per litre the mitigating compensation would be substantial; and
• Given that this property apparently changed ownership relatively recently the owner must have been aware of any clear and present risk at that time and especially so currently as apparently Council has denied approval for this tree’s removal previously.
218 Charles Street is managed as a visitor’s accommodation venue which adds some context to this application. The building has been occupied by various businesses over time and thus as a heritage building is concerned it has accumulated a significant cohort of people who have developed relationships with ‘the place’ with this tree being a component of those relationships.
All things considered, Councillors are faced yet again with making a determination relative to this tree on behalf of the constituencies they represent, and ideally mindful of the independent expert advice Council’s Management is bound to provide under the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act.
In conclusion I ask councillors to be very mindful of everything that is at stake relative to this tree and all the symbolism there is in trees and their PLACEmaking determination on behalf of the communities they were elected to represent along with the proponent in this instance. Poignantly, this tree with its ‘heritage’ status unavoidably stands as a significant representative of trees in Launceston’s CULTURALlandscape and thus precedence set here will background future decision making in the urban environment that will have ‘trickle-down’ effects elsewhere and decades ahead.
IMPORTANTLY WHATEVER COUNCILLORS DETERMINE IN REGARD TO THIS
SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE TREE IT WILL BE A BENCHMARK AGAINST WHICH
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS OF THIS KIND CAN BE
AND ARE EVER LIKELY TO BE MEASURED
REPRESENTATION: I submit here my objection to the ill-considered removal of this significant tree located at York Park 2 Invermay Road Invermay and I do so having considered a number of issues. Notably I contacted the named planning officer for the DA seeking further information relevant to the determination that this tree in this place and was unsuccessful in receiving any further information beyond the scant and subjective information embodied in the Development Application.
Curiously, I was directed to the CEO should I wish to gain further information relevant to this DA and I have not done so under the current circumstances. However, it needs to be said that this DA bears all the hallmarks of being put together in the abescence of any significant community consultation. In addition, there is no apparent evidence that there has been any attempt to place a ‘value’ of any kind on this significant tree situated as it is on a heritage site.
That is concerning in the light of the city’s ‘GREENING LAUNCESTON POLICY’ and Council’s 2019 decollation of a CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
In the here and now it needs to be said that at every opportunity trees need to be valued and likewise appropriately evaluated by professionals with the skills, experience and domain knowledge . There is no evidence than any attempt has been made give this tree a value and then determine what needs to be determined in the light of the value ascribed. The attitude adopted at the beginning of a task, more than anything else, will affect its successful outcome or otherwise.
So, what values can be ascribed to this tree?
In May in Adelaide the State Govt set some benchmarks for ‘valuing’ trees in Adelaide – see notes below. This is more than interesting when considered against discussions elsewhere about placing a monetary value on a tree. This has now been done in Adelaide.
There have also been discussions about establishing a formular for ascribing a dollar value to a tree. Given that it is possible to calculate the volume a tree occupies it is relatively simple task ascribe a value per litre of volume of canopy.
Say a litre of volume is given the value of $1, and a tree’s canopy is calculated as being 1,000 litres its value will be $1,000. If it were 10,000 litres its assigned value would be $10,000. If as is the case in Adelaide this sum is dedicated to offsetting the loss of canopy via the planting of other trees towards canopy restoration, real world pragmatic accountability becomes a possibility. There is no evidence of this class of thinking reflected in the proposition that this tree can and should be removed without consequence.
- This elm’s canopy value has not been ascribed and that is concerning!
- The tree’s carbon sequestration – current and potential – has not been evaluated in any way and that too is concerning!
- Council’s planners have made a determination – apparently in isolation – that this tree impedes the design process for the development and no evidence as to how or why this subjective assessment has been arrived at, and that too is concerning!
- There has not been any apparent consideration given to what happens to the wood/timber in this tree in the event the tree is felled, and that too is concerning!
- There is now evidence that this tree’s heritage values have been considered in the architect’s brief, and that too is concerning!
- Moreover, given York Park’s extensive Community of Ownership and Interest(COI), there is no evidence on show that talks about taking the COI’s concerns, sensibilities or cultural values into account in reference to the overall development and/or this tree’s significance, and that too is concerning given that what is at hand is an exercise in placemaking!
In the light of all this I submit that the case for this tree’s removal has NOT been made and thus every effort must now be made and every step taken to preserve it despite the officer’s subjective and one dimensional assessment – essentially made in isolation.
No comments:
Post a Comment