The Hypocrisy Continues

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 anything else that can explain the removal of these trees. Two weeks later, after repeated attempts to get some information, nothing.

So the huge trees directly over my house that pose a very clear risk can only be pruned a little, but these random trees that pose no risk in a park (no power lines, no amenities, no general pedestrian movement around them) are mysteriously removed... how interesting.

Here's one image of two stumps in question (there are at least 3 more of equal or greater size).



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gum Trees, a.k.a the Widowmakers

Tree killed man after council blocked removal

Calculating risk of fatality from falling tree