Family Held Hostage by Council's Tree Preservation Rules

This post is a continuation to my family's main issues with these trees (read  main post  first, and the  greater risks ). Summary of which is, council has investigated the trees looming over our house, and declared that a 10% pruning of one of the 3 towering trees is all that is allowed to reduce the risk of these trees crushing and killing us. Meanwhile, on the opposite site of our house is a national park of sorts, with hundreds of these trees around. Just the other day while going for a walk, I notice over 5 fresh, large stumps here, so some large trees were just recently cut. Now the question I have is, why were these trees cut? Who authorized it? And for what reason? I have photos of the tree stumps, and of what was there before. These cut trees are no where near any power-lines or any other amenities of any sort, so they were most definitely not removed for any safety risks of any sort. I contacted council multiple times requesting some information as to any DA or an

Gum trees ( like the trees in question hanging over our house ) are often referred to as the widowmakers, due to their trait of dropping branches unpredictably and without notice ( read more on this here ). This post in particular, however, discusses a scientific peer-reviewed paper with a proposed method of calculating the risk of injury, and risk of death from falling trees . Namely, " Review of QTRA and Risk-based Cost-benefit Assessment of Tree Management " (Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2013. 39(4): 165–172). The paper discusses the following formula: Risk of harm = Probability of failure × Target value × Impact potential harm is defined as serious injury or death probability of failure is the annual probability that a tree or selected tree part will fail the target value is the probability that a person, a vehicle, or the property will be impacted; the impact potential is the probability of harm a falling tree, or part of a tree, can cause to a pedes

Gum trees (like the trees in question hanging over our house ) are often referred to as the widowmakers . This post outlines some external reports on how this nickname was earned. "River reds and many other eucalypts have an ominous nickname, "widow maker", as they have a habit of dropping large boughs (often half the diameter of the trunk) without warning ." [ wikipedia ] " GIANT eucalypts have a habit of dropping heavy branches to save water during droughts , earning them an ominous nickname, ''widow maker''. " [ The Age ] " Knox City Council is felling about 400 spotted and scented gums in suburbs such as Rowville, where residents are fed up with the damage done by thirsty roots, falling limbs and messy leaves. " [ The Age ] The council cut down about 70 towering gums on Goulburn Drive late last year after being forced to pay thousands of dollars in compensation to individual home owners and their insurance companies

This post discuss one of the lesser issues with these trees (read main post first, and the greater risks ). Namely, the irreversible damage that these trees are causing to our family car. Here's an image of our car, parked in our own driveway, after a single moderately windy night: "Big deal", I hear you saying. "Just a couple of leaves, get over it!" Well, unfortunately it is a bit of a problem. Tree sap from gum leaves will very quickly permanently damage a car's paint . Tree sap is among the toughest contaminants to remove from a vehicle's finish--and among the most damaging . Once tree sap bakes onto a vehicle under a hot sun, it become like a resin . After baking into the finish, the sap eventually etches into the clearcoat and paint , causing webs of deterioration around every spot of sap. Baked-on sap will not wash off , and even many solvents won't take it off. Hard sap shrugs off virtually all combination cleaner waxes ,

This post is a comment on the Gordon Timbs case from Shoalhaven City Council. Citing the linked article: The seven gum trees stood 30 metres high and 10 metres from the Timbs family house [in our case the gum trees are literally 4 meters from our house] . Gordon Timbs knew they posed a threat to his family and property, and he wanted them removed. So in July 1996 the 48-year-old sought permission from Shoalhaven City Council to cut them down. He was refused under the Tree Preservation Order . Eighteen months later, when a large branch fell on a vehicle [a large branch has fallen on our roof causing water damage and need for extensive repairs] , he repeated his concerns to the council. It again refused, saying the trees were "sound" and could not be removed. Six months later during a storm one of the trees came down - on top of his house. Mr Timbs, who was asleep in his bed, was killed instantly.   Mr Timbs' widow, Carlene, said the council caused her husband'

My family and I live in the suburb of Lane Cove (NSW Australia), in a single-story three bedroom brick veneer house. Above our roof are two large gum trees, maybe 25 meters tall, and  with 40% to 50% of the canopies extending directly above our roof . Large branches reach almost all the way accross our home. Now on first sight, there's nothing wrong with this. The beautiful trees overhanging the house look peaceful and picturistic. The Lane Cove area is full of these types of views, bringing a leafy characteristic to the suburb, which is attractive and pleasant when you're driving through, right? However,  having to actually live with these trees above our heads  24/7, is very far from pleasant or peaceful: These large branches are very close to our roof. So much so that  in strong winds branches hit the tiles  causing noise and damage. When it rains heavily, the  branches get wet, and heavy . Which means they get even lower and closer to our roof tiles, liter