The Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, has made a decision to allow a developer to remove 22 of 26 brush box trees (Lophstemon confertus) at Sydney's Olympic Park.
The trees date from 1916 when they were planted along the avenue to the State Abattoirs at Homebush. They are a vestige of the former stockroutes taken by the cattle to the stockyards. They were laid out on the recommendation of the then director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, J H Maiden . The trees for the area were chosen for their ability to survive extreme conditions of flood or drought. Many decades later, the Abattoir site became Sydney's Olympic Park, where the 2000 Olympic Games were staged. The 2000 Olympics were proclaimed the Green Games, with the Government planting native landscapes and providing a special environment for the endangered green and gold bell frog. Now the games live only in our memories, it seems green credentials no longer matter.
The development is an office building by Bovis Lend Lease. The site is known as Site 4B, corner of Olympic Boulevard and Herb Elliott Avenue. Some of the trees are not within the building site, they are along the approach to the building, so arguably could be preserved.
While the trees themselves are not listed heritage items under the the Abattoir Heritage Conservation Area is, and the avenue is adjacent to heritage items including buildings and gardens within that precinct. The developer responded to this in its Preferred Project report by agreeing to plant 4 additional trees to add to the 4 trees retained (not even keeping the same trees!)
The Director-General’s Assessment Report to the Minister under Part 3A states as justification for their removal: “The existing Brush Box trees currently on the site are in relatively poor condition”. However this is based on an assessment of 6 trees only, carried out by Urban Tree Management in November 2006. The report notes that the 6 trees are in a “fair to low condition, primarily as a result of drought” and goes on “As a consequence, the removal of existing trees is a less serious issue than if the subject trees were healthy subjects.”
This conclusion is wrong.
The UTM report notes that while the trees as a whole were showing signs of stress from the drought, “no changes were observed to the remaining trees proposed for removal” since the previous report in 2005 – therefore there was no factual basis to assume they had declined. In fact only 2 of those other trees are actually identified in the UTM as being in poor condition.
While the trees themselves are not listed heritage items under the the Abattoir Heritage Conservation Area is, and the avenue is adjacent to heritage items including buildings and gardens within that precinct. The developer responded to this in its Preferred Project report by agreeing to plant 4 additional trees to add to the 4 trees retained (not even keeping the same trees!)
The Director-General’s Assessment Report to the Minister under Part 3A states as justification for their removal: “The existing Brush Box trees currently on the site are in relatively poor condition”. However this is based on an assessment of 6 trees only, carried out by Urban Tree Management in November 2006. The report notes that the 6 trees are in a “fair to low condition, primarily as a result of drought” and goes on “As a consequence, the removal of existing trees is a less serious issue than if the subject trees were healthy subjects.”
This conclusion is wrong.
The UTM report notes that while the trees as a whole were showing signs of stress from the drought, “no changes were observed to the remaining trees proposed for removal” since the previous report in 2005 – therefore there was no factual basis to assume they had declined. In fact only 2 of those other trees are actually identified in the UTM as being in poor condition.
· The report makes clear that the trees are not terminal – that if artificial irrigation was applied they would recover and with good management could be successfully managed
· In fact, if artificial irrigation and mulching is not undertaken, the report concluded, even those trees marked for retention could suffer from the impacts of the adjacent excavation which will affect the water table. It is the excavation which poses the major threat to the trees’ health, not any environmental factors.
A horticulturalist who recently viewed the trees said they were in good condition - but for how much longer?
No comments:
Post a Comment