In a leafy suburb of Sydney’s east, a towering weeping fig has become the centre of a heated debate that has residents rallying for its survival and experts calling for a nationwide overhaul of council powers. The Randwick City Council’s decision to remove the 24-metre-high tree, allegedly due to damage caused to a local homeowner’s fence, lawn, and driveway, has sparked a fierce backlash and a broader conversation about the value of mature trees in urban environments.
Professor Sarah Bekessy, a leading urban planner from RMIT and the Biodiversity Council, has voiced her concerns, suggesting that the current regulations are too lenient when it comes to the destruction of trees that are not only loved by locals but also play a crucial role in the ecosystem. She argues that big, old trees are a rarity in cities and that their removal is happening at an alarming rate, often under the guise of safety or infrastructure damage.
The benefits of mature trees are undeniable and multifaceted. They provide shade, reduce urban heat islands, and support wildlife. As Professor Bekessy points out, the cooling effect of a large tree with an expansive canopy is substantial, and laws should be in place to protect these natural assets rather than guidelines that seem to facilitate their demise.
The notion that old trees can simply be replaced with new plantings has been labelled as ‘pretty silly’ by Bekessy. The reality is that the ecological services provided by mature trees cannot be immediately replicated by saplings, and local wildlife cannot afford to wait decades for these new trees to mature.
The weeping fig in question holds a special place in the hearts of the Clovelly and Coogee communities. It’s not just a tree; it’s a landmark that holds memories, provides natural beauty, and serves as a home for various species, including possums, owls, and kookaburras. In a show of solidarity, residents adorned the tree with sketches of these animals and tied a large bow around it, symbolising its importance to the community.
Despite the council’s claims that all ‘feasible options to retain the tree’ have been exhausted, the community is not convinced. The council’s decision to remove the tree, based on advice from its insurer, has been met with protests and the threat of legal action. Residents are demanding transparency and have filed a freedom of information request for the arborist report and communications between the insurer and the council. They are prepared to take the matter to the land and environment court if necessary. ‘We are determined to get justice for the tree,’ says local resident Rob Aird, echoing the sentiment of a community united in its fight to save a beloved natural treasure.
In response, the council convened an extraordinary general meeting this week to reconsider the tree’s fate but ultimately reaffirmed its decision to remove it. ‘Council has been actively managing the tree for many years to try and retain it. This has included undertaking canopy pruning, root investigations and pruning and repairs to the footpath,’ the council stated. Later, the council informed Yahoo News that all ‘feasible options to retain the tree’ had been explored, reiterating its stance that the tree was responsible for the damage.
This controversy has brought to light the need for a serious discussion about the powers of local councils and the protection of significant trees. It raises questions about the balance between property rights and environmental conservation, and whether federal protection for important old trees should be considered.
What are your thoughts on the council’s decision? Have you witnessed similar situations in your area? Share your stories and opinions in the comments below.
Also read: 80-year-old tree vs one complaint: Council’s decision sparks uproar
