Trees are our most valuable asset. But not in the eyes of this council it would seem. No Tree Register after years and years. No safeguard against moonscaping. Park trees barely rate a mention in Street Tree Policy. No details of regular maintenance such as pruning, watering, tendering and general loving care – in contrast to the set in stone policies of other councils. It is a mentality that would prefer to raze and destroy rather than prune and safeguard. After all, it is a hell of a lot cheaper to get rid of a tree than to prune and nurture it. Even when limbs fall there is no attempt to protect the tree from subsequent disease as the slideshow illustrates. Nor do we get any figures as to what happens with the dollars collected from developers when trees are ripped out for crossovers – how much is collected? how is it spent? how often does council come along and tend this tree since they’ve been paid to look after it?
Then we have the claim year after year that council plants 1600 trees per year. Anything from 500 to 1000 are claimed to be ‘replacement’ trees. What residents are not told is how many of these ‘replacement’ trees require ‘replacement’ after 3 months? 6 months? one year? The streets and parks are littered with new plantings that have died because they have either been planted in the wrong place, or the wrong species has been planted in the wrong place, or there has not been the required attention paid to ensure that all these young trees have a chance of surviving. How much has all this inefficiency cost and how much will it continue to cost? The most important question is – who is to blame?
The slideshow below features individual trees within just one specific park. Multiply this across the entire municipality and we fully expect that half the trees will be gone within a decade.
Send us your photos. The more evidence we accumulate of gross inefficiency, neglect and the inexcusable waste of ratepayers’ money, the greater the chance of improved performance!
Last but not least, we have to point out how other councils treat the issue of safeguarding their natural environments. Bayside for instance has emblazoned on its homepage a call to residents for focus groups, submissions. They include a consultant’s report, a detailed ‘discussion paper’, a balanced and comprehensive online survey, and a draft. What happens in Glen Eira? A paltry two page effort by an unnamed author! and of course, no genuine public consultation on anything! Here’s the Bayside webpage – http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Tree_controls_in_Bayside.htm
Glen Eira Debates 
February 4, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Rediculous unfounded blog.Go to Alnutt,Packer and Princess Parks and open your eyes.
February 4, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous 1 is truly astounding – evidence before his/her eyes, yet without supplying one iota of substantiation, he/she feels justified in labelling this blog unfounded. One wonders at the mental process involved.
February 4, 2013 at 3:30 PM
Every single arborist worth his salt will tell you that once a branch falls the tree needs to be taken care of by either cutting the break back to the closest point and applying ointments which will safeguard the tree from fungal and other diseases. If this doesn’t happen then the tree will eventually rot right through and be destroyed. The photos are a terrific example of how this doesn’t happen in Glen Eira.
February 4, 2013 at 5:01 PM
I have some sympathy for the view of ‘anonymous’ here.
I’m a big fan of the blog. Not so much of this selective imaging however. For every poorly pruned or neglected tree there are 500 images that could be taken of perfectly healthy trees.
I say that as someone who is not a supporter of those responsible for trees in our municipality. There seems to be no planning or forethought. New trees are plonked-in without much thought or imagination, either as to how they blend or to positioning. Canopies seem to be important in some instances and not others when pruning– no consistency.
Queens Road along the racecourse is a classic example where council seems to have used the strip to plonk-in trees they had over.
However, let’s not selectively show a few images of poorly cared for trees and suggest that represents the general health of trees throughout the municipality. It doesn’t.
February 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM
We do not regard 15 photographs (not all uploaded) taken within a 100 metre radius to represent “selective imaging”. Nor do we deny that there are “perfectly healthy trees” within Glen Eira. What we do assert – as you yourself have stated – is that the maintenance of these and countless other newly planted trees are sub-standard and therefore costing ratepayers many thousands of dollars. Instead of neglect and inefficiency we want better quality control, better systems in place, and that residents really receive value for money. There is no point in continually planting unsuitable, or even suitable trees if a large percentage of these will die, or if they are not tended adequately.As for the mature trees, they deserve as much attention as these young ones to ensure that they last their 60, 80 or 100 years. These trees are irreplaceable.
February 4, 2013 at 7:29 PM
Autonomy, what’s presented in the post is about more than the health of trees and how many are well cared for and how many aren’t. There are healthy trees but there are also many trees that desperately need attention. You’ve pointed out some of the shortcomings. The post points out others. I totally agree with the statement that it’s cheaper to “raze and destroy” than to attempt recovery and longevity. The Leader has featured numerous stories in the past where the razor gang came in overnight and laid waste to huge numbers of trees. In the last few weeks there’s also been Leader stories on resident protests about trees. I remember Downshire Rd and a small notice about a another huge tree in a park.
I’ve had a good look at the Bayside site. There’s plenty of information and plenty of opportunity for people to have a say and express an opinion. I can’t remember at any stage that Glen Eira has asked people what they think about trees on private property or other matters relating to trees apart from the street tree policy which focuses on species. We’ll now get a “draft” local law clause or two and it will be rubber stamped by councillors. There hasn’t been discussion or research done and communicated. That’s after years and years of residents complaining about moonscaping.
There are stacks of inter-related issues here and they need to be considered as a whole. It suits council to handle them in an isolated and ad hoc fashion. That way the impact on the other issues won’t be so obvious.
February 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM
As you can read, there is much that those running GE and I have in common on this matter. I just don’t agree with what I regard as a tabloid approach being the fairest way to present the case. GE did this once before regarding paths.
I’ve just taken the time to meander around Princes Park and the overwhelming majority of trees there are fine. Friends of mine take their kids to Packer Park to play and assure me it’s a fine well cared for park.
I occasionally run around the parkland surrounding Duncan McKinnon Reserve and the overwhelming majority of trees there are fine. Though pulling down a perfectly good pavilion not that old to replace it when there are many others that have had little done in yonks is yet another illustration of biased decision making in my view. E.E.Gunn Reserve being one that gets little attention. But that’s another story.
There’s an old saying in journalism I’m reliably told ie “accurate presentation of news and fair presentation of views”. Not sure the presentation here lives up to that lofty standard. Anyhow, let’s get back to the main issue.
February 4, 2013 at 1:57 PM
You’d think that some proper systems would be in place but obviously not. It shouldn’t be too hard. If a branch falls the people collecting it or woodchipping it should report that the limb needs treatment. I also vouch that my street has now got 2 dead saplings. That’s probably 80 or 100 dollars that can be written off.
February 4, 2013 at 2:15 PM
I happen to agree with this posting and am appalled at Council’s total failure to protect and maintain trees in parks, streets and private land. Glen Eira used to be green and leafy – now if you want green and leafy you have to go elsewhere.
Green was one of things that made parts (Caulfield, Elsternwick, Ormond, Glen Huntly) of Glen Eira some of the most attractive and desirable suburbs in Melbourne. Now, whenever the media lists the top Melbourne suburbs, the old stalwart are still there (Kew, Hawthorn, Malvern, Camberwell, Toorak) but nowhere in Glen Eira rates a mention. Overdevelopment and Council’s failure to protect and maintain trees have both combined to reduce what was once attractive and desirable to ordinary.
February 4, 2013 at 11:38 PM
An interesting debate. I’m not quite sure that I accept Autonomy’s charge of tabloid journalism. How many photographs would it take Autonomy, to indicate that there is a real problem with the management of trees in Glen Eira? Perhaps the authors can provide us with some more. I’m just curious as to what the tipping point is here – 200, 300, 400, 5000 photos? Let’s say that the total is 200. That in itself suggests that remedial action is warranted. It’s not a question of how many are “healthy” but how many are neglected and the cost of such neglect to the community. If we lose a 50 year old tree because it hasn’t been looked after then that’s negligence in my view. If we plant 1600 trees per year and 600 don’t make it past 6 months, that’s also negligence I’d say.
February 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM
D.E
In terms of numbers, it is about percentage not sheer numerical size. In terms of coverage, it is about tone and balance. Leave it to us posters to overlook such details. 🙂