Points of Contention in the Fig Debate

Dear Colleagues,

Re the contribution to the Fig Debate from Council’s web site:
http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/about_newcastle/news_and_events/media_releases/media_releases/fig_forum_light_on_facts/_nocache

These issues are in contention from the Council’s point of view and can be answered formally.

The issues will not go away (trees or no trees) and the Council should show “Reasonable Cause” for their resolution to remove the trees under section 88 of the Roads Act 1993. (The question is: 'If a Councillor has' can mean 'If a Councillor thinks he has'. I believe that Council cannot now have a reasonable cause for the opinion that the trees are a hazard to traffic.

In the case Parks and Playgrounds Movement Vs Newcastle Council September 2010 it was presumed that General Manager Lindy Hyam had the opinion that the trees were a hazard to traffic.
However this week’s Forum demolished the basis for such an opinion to be held by the Council. Elected Councillors should show “reasonable cause” for their action in forming the opinion that the trees are a Hazard to traffic.

I have listed the issues in dot points below:

If you wish to understand the proposal for the widened Laman Street Plaza,  Called Anzac Place in Council’s submission to the Commonwealth Commission, it is attached below. The proposal was exhibited euphemistically as a Design Framework and has Council’s Logo on the front page. It claims to be from the two day workshop in March 2010 but was not.

Council states on its web: Last night’s fig fact forum included a number of statements that were false. These are addressed below. (I have paraphrased the 14 points. Full text on Council’s web site)

§         Council is a public body proud of its openness and transparency- it has conducted public forums, voice etc and provided information on Council Website.
§         Offensive to claim Council withheld Radar reports- request processed under Government Information (public access) Act.
§         Council has obtained 4 independent Arborist Assessments.
§         Council’s insurer will not cover risk beyond 31st Jan 2012.
§         Irresponsible statements that trees safe- 35 out of 135 removed failed and removed from the inner city.
§         Anzac Plaza is not reason for removing figs it is an idea sent to Commission –not funds application.
§         No tree reports have anything to do with Anzac Plaza.
§         Not the first time the Roads Act has been used to remove hazards - decision upheld by Court.
§         Behaviour of SOF people has required the Police.
§         A detailed response to Prof Stewart is on the Council Web.
§         SOF refers to arborist reports that contradict Council’s advice- they are not legally accountable Council’s advice based on knowledge of the site.
§         No ulterior motives and Council will replant 4 metre high trees in vaults to prevent root problems.
§         Council acknowledges that Trees have become contentious but acts for whole community.
§         Council desires to concentrate on Core Duties.

Cheers to all,
Doug Lithgow

Where is the DA for Laman Street?

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to request our supporting Councillors to move in council as a matter of urgency that a Development Application be prepared for the proposed redevelopment of Laman Street which may involve the removal of the trees and the planting of new trees in different locations together with ancillary works new pavements and new grades? It is important that the new developments proposed do not affect the Civic Park Community Land or the curtilage of the famous Civic Park Fountain designed by Margel Hinder. With all the Council spam over the past 18 months there has never been a detailed plan or DA that could be professionally assessed. Just vague proposals and lies about trees falling over in Laman Street and exaggerated danger claims.

This would mean that a proper plan showing what is actually proposed would have to be made and open for public display. The 'Cook' Plan recently published illustrated massive reshaping of the streetscape to make a flat surface at the floor level of the Cultural Centre and widening into the Civic Park which would have a major effect on the Fountain and its curtilage and the Memorial Grove.

Proper plans showing finished levels pavement treatment and planting positions for new trees are essential. Any effect on Community Land would automatically trigger the Community Land provisions of the Local Government act: which incidentally Council has been trying to get around with the unreal danger argument and undocumented proposals since day one. 

Cheers,

Doug Lithgow

Does Civic Park Really Need Fixing?

Dear Colleagues and citizens of the planet,

Please have a look at this Youtube clip:.

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=0ahYGhHlP3w

This short Video puts the finger on the Newcastle pulse and is clearly critical of the negative myopia of the Newcastle Councillor’s who on the 17th August 2010 decided:

“ The Hills fig trees in Laman Street Newcastle between Darby Street and Dawson Street be removed as soon as possible and replaced with a central line of Hills Figs as soon as suitable trees can be provided"

Such an action would put our Cultural Precinct back in the fifties.

It will take thirty years for the replacement trees to reach a mature form and a row of trees in not the cathedral quality we enjoy in Laman Street now.

Hardly the action of mature men and women with the city at heart.

Look about you see and acknowledge what is good and work to protect it for all to enjoy.

Doug Lithgow

Other videos:


Save the Figs: The 8 Stupid Reasons to Cut Down Nice Trees">Save the Figs: The 8 Stupid Reasons to Cut Down Nice Trees
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=uuDGEQn4wrw

The Perilous Figs of Laman St
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtlqyd3cojY

"HONK to save Laman Street Figs" , Newcastle.
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=kD6Paljl0sU