Saturday, January 20, 2018

Frank Newman: Killer Trees


On January 6, a storm brought down a 150 year old English Oak tree in central Rotorua. It crashed onto a nearby office building and on a parked car, killing the sole occupant.

Rotorua Mayor Steve Chadwick said the death was a tragic accident. She said, "This is an absolute tragedy and our hearts and thoughts are with the family at this terrible time".

Indeed it is a tragedy. The issue is whether it could or should have been avoided and whether the actions or inactions of the Mayor, the council's Chief Executive, or its arborist contributed to the tragedy and should be held criminally liable.

According to media reports, the oak tree was regularly checked as part of the council's notable trees inspections programme. In February 2017 a report presented to the council found no major issues with the tree. Annual inspections were recommended. After that report was presented to Council, another tree expert raised concerns about the tree’s safety.  As a result, the Council's regular contractor carried out another inspection and in late September/early October bracing on the tree was replaced and some branches were removed. In January the tree collapsed.

My question is, why prop up a tree that is in a high risk location? One does not need to be a tree expert to know that if a tree needs bracing then there are some serous issues going on.  

There is no doubt the tree was spectacular; 23 metres high, a crown spread of 33 metres, and a girth (circumference) of 7.1 metres. It was big and towered over the single story office building that partially sat under its drip line.  

The tree also has some history - the story being that the tree was planted in 1863 from one of four acorns sent to Rev. Richard Taylor at Wanganui by Queen Victoria in 1861. Seedlings from the other three acorns were successfully planted in Wanganui, Christchurch and Dunedin on 9 August 1863 to commemorate the marriage of Prince Albert Edward and Princess Alexandra of Denmark. In 1984 it was thought to be the largest specimen of its kind in New Zealand, although it now seems there is a larger tree in Motueka.

It was an impressive tree but is any tree worth risking human life or serious property damage? Absolutely not! It is after all, just a tree.

In this unfortunate case, even members of the general public could see the tree was dangerous, not only because of its age and size, but also because of its location.

Here's a simple truth. Big trees in close proximity to people and property are dangerous - end of story. There are countless examples of notable trees collapsing - despite being monitored and managed by experts. It is quite obvious that a "tree management plan" does not eliminate the risk of limbs falling or the total collapse of a tree, and I doubt very much that it even reduces the risk.

There are appropriate places for big trees - those places are called parks and forests! The tree in Arawa Street in Rotorua may have been planted in an appropriate place in 1861, but in 2018 that place happens to be a busy commercial area. It is not an appropriate site for a large oak tree.

What is ironic is how much has been done to make workplaces safer, yet the safety issues of large trees in close proximity to roads or where people live and work has gone unnoticed. It's simply not acceptable. It's about time councillors and senior council management stopped kow-towing to activist tree huggers who are so blinded by their ideals that they have no regard for the risks to people and property. It's a matter of priorities - what matters most - a tree, or human life?

There needs to be some common sense from public servants to put public safety ahead of tree preservation. In my opinion they will only do so if they are personally liable for the consequences of their inaction.

Tree tragedies such as that which has occurred in Rotorua are avoidable and those culpable should be held criminally liable. In this case the tree was "protected" by the council so it was their responsibility to manage the tree in a manner that did not put the public at risk. If they could not guarantee that - the tree should have been removed.

If they fail to do that, then it is the council CEO or its mayor that should be held criminally liable - just as employers and company directors have become criminally liable for workplace safety. Only then will council leaders start taking the risks associated with heritage trees seriously.

Frank Newman is an investment analyst, author and former councillor who writes a weekly article for Property Plus.

7 comments:

Dave said...
Reply To This Comment

Trees are an essentlal part of the landscape and they are also natural objects that shed branches occasionally and this should be accepted as part of the price we pay for having them around. To say someone is liable for a tree is ridiculous unless it is blatantly obvious that rot or large cracks are apparent. There are many things that can effect a trees viability such as fungus, bacteria and root damage,none of which can be easily detected. In a storm in England in about 1988 many of the healthy oaks were blown over because they had a full set of leaves giving more wind resistance than the partially dead "stags horn" oaks which stayed upright - who was liable there?

tegdetour said...
Reply To This Comment

Absolutley right Put the blame where it is should be. WELL SAID

Anonymous said...
Reply To This Comment

I'm not sure your line of responsibility is reasonable until we know what their reporting system is. I live in rural Auckland and the person who was taking care-cough- of our roadside trees was not a qualified Arbourist! I had to tell him to take a hike a year ago given the damage he had done to "my" tree and he did not argue. The new Contact has a qualified Arborist who I met and questioned about "my" tree and he was appalled at the limb cutting this idiot had done and many other examples across the area. Until we know who employed who and in what capacity; who were they answerable too etc there is no clear line of responsibility surely. Perhaps you can find out and comment further.

Anonymous said...
Reply To This Comment

The issue with this tree is no different to that of Pike River. A known hazard was not managed properly by those responsible for doing so, despite concerns being raised repeatedly. People died as a consequence. After Pike River, legislation was put in place to ensure serious criminal charges and jail terms could/would be given to people who do not adequately discharge their responsibilities resulting in injury or death, as in this case. Steve Chadwick and any other officials responsible need to be charged and sentenced for this event.

Frank Newman said...
Reply To This Comment

@Anonymous

I have requested the arborist report tabled at a Council meeting in February 2017. The Rotorua Lakes Council has treated my request as an Official Information...Act request. I am awaiting their further reply and will write a follow-up column when or if received. I agree blame cannot be attributed at this stage. The coroner may make some recommendations in their report when it is finally eventually, but I am of the view that a much wider independent enquiry needs to be carried out to establish whether the risks associated with large trees can be avoided and what implications this has for local authorities.

Frank Newman said...
Reply To This Comment

@Dave

Dave. You have just proved my point. You have shown that tree-greenies are so narrowed minded in their view that they the value they place on a tree is greater than the value they place on a human life (presumably someone else's life, not theirs).

As I state in the column, trees do have a place - parks and forests. My point is, trees that large trees should not be located in areas that have the potential to harm human life or property.

Your very own comment about healthy oaks blowing over in England shows how unpredictable Oaks are. Even healthy ones are a risk - and according to you, more so than decaying ones.

Anonymous said...
Reply To This Comment

A few years ago our section in central Auckland was surrounded be several very old and very large oak trees. However there are now two fewer, as one huge oak "collapsed" with spring growth narrowly missing our house, and a second also went in a similar fashion a year or so later. This latter had been inspected by the council arborist only a few months only. My wife had only minutes before, picked flowers from under the tree, and went back to the house, only hear a huge thump as the tree hit the ground, avoiding damage as if carefully felled but completely blocking the drive and road. Needless to say we have "oak tree fright" When huge and old the weight of timber is immense. The danger is real and not worth the prospect of loss of life. This Rotorua tree was understandably majestic but it's not worth loss of life !!

Post a Comment

Thanks for engaging in the debate!

Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.

Please note - if you use the new REPLY button for comments, please start your comments AFTER the code. Also, the Blogger comment limit is 4,096 characters, so to post something longer, you may wish to use Part 1, Part 2 etc.