Who Gives a Fig?

The TASNG made a complete submission to LMCC on the draft Toronto Streetscape Master plan. This submission was endorsed by the Progress Association and an abridged version highlighting the comments about the Fig Trees has been included in this Chronicle. The full submission can be read on the Coal Point blogspot.

If you would like your feeling known about the future of the fig trees the local councilors are best option as the people’s representatives. Discussion about the Toronto Streetscape Plan are due at September council meetings.

The West Ward Councillors are 

• Daniel Wallace dwallace@lakemac.nsw.gov.au mob: 0429 610 290
• Ken Paxinos kpaxinos@lakemac.nsw.gov.au mob 0409 896 619
• Wendy Harrison wharrison@lakemac.nsw.gov.au mob 0409 775 432
• Rosmairi Dawson rokeno@lakemac.nsw.gov.au mob 0417 300 170

Street Trees:
We have some specific comments on the proposal to remove the large fig trees in the Boulevard.

We acknowledge the complex considerations that Council needs to weigh up. We understand that the plan to remove the figs is primarily based on the following reasons, in addition to more minor problems mentioned (e.g.bird droppings, taking up car park spaces):

1. costs of on-going maintenance to above- and below-ground infrastructure;
2. complaints by certain businesses2 about on-going costs of fixing blocked storm and sewer systems and the condition of specific paved areas; and
3. fear of litigation.

We suspect that Council may already be inclined to accept that removing the nine fig trees from the Boulevard is the most cost-effective way of dealing with the modernisation of the Boulevard. That is, cost may be the overriding consideration, even though a formal cost/benefit analysis has not yet been conducted, as far as we know. We hope that Council is open to considering alternative suggestions.

The greatest concern is obviously with the southside of the Boulevard. However, the Plan also calls for removal of trees on the northside of the Boulevard to improve strategic views to the Lake and the mountains. Whilst the views would no doubt be improved, we question the wisdom of much reduced tree cover on the northside, when shade is required on both sides of the Boulevard in summer.

Why are we concerned? Our concerns relate to the following:

1. Removal of all of the fig trees will result in a significant loss of biodiversity (including the abundant bird life, especially in the evenings), shade during summer months due to the extensive canopies, significant carbon sequestration opportunities presented by these large trees and other environmental benefits, visual amenity and cultural values.
2. Considerable variation in opinion exists as to what would be appropriate replacement tree species/varieties.
3. There has been inadequate assessment of the extent and degree of impact of fig tree roots on underground services such as storm water and sewer pipes, and how much the age and type (mainly earthenware) of these pipes has contributed to some observed issues.
4. The plan states '...there is no practical solution to the problems caused by the trees' extensive root system and canopies'. Although we were provided with some indications that remedial and protective works would not be easy, no conclusive evidence has been presented that they are not always impractical.
5. The plan refers to '...a staged replacement of all the Boulevard's existing fig trees....' When questioned at the MPCC Forum, Council officers were not able to indicate the length of time implied by 'staged', although an 18 month period was mentioned. Such a short period does not auger well for how the Boulevard will look in the short to medium term, even if advanced trees are planted.
6. There is apparently no plan to completely replace the ageing, existing storm water and sewer system along the southern side of the Boulevard, but only minimal remedial works in the immediate vicinity of the currently located fig trees... Has Council considered the likely impacts of the new trees on the ageing, underground infrastructure, or will root systems of each tree be contained and, if so, how will this affect above-ground tree size?
7.  … the advice from a consultant arborist is that the trees are healthy, they do not pose a public health risk and they can be adequately maintained for at least the next 15-40 years… The arborist has indicated that the degree of interference of roots in the storm water and sewer system is essentially unknown.
8. There doesn't appear to be an option provided for how the streetscape of the southern side of the Boulevard might be engineered if the figs were to be retained. For example, how much of the required fixing of specific paved areas near some of the trees is relatively low cost and  straightforward, and would allay fears of litigation?

We would, respectfully, suggest the following scenarios, in order of priority consideration by Council:

1.  Retain all the fig trees, including the weeping fig on the northern sideIn the words of the songwriter...'you don't know what you've got till it's gone...'.
2. Carry out strategic trimming of the canopies to reduce their physical above ground size with the potential to reduce root growth and likely impact.
3. Conduct a non-invasive assessment of the rooting patterns with respect to storm water and sewer pipes and the location and state of those pipes. Engage with Hunter Water as required.
4. Suggest how the streetscape work would be modified from the current plan if the figs were to be retained, with emphasis on both footpath amenity, underground services and other considerations.
5. Consult with other Councils (e.g. in Sydney, Wauchope) as to how they have dealt with older fig trees in streets and public places.
6. Remove only those figs which are deemed to be an unacceptable hazard.For each fig tree considered for removal, a clear assessment needs to be made available of why this is deemed necessary, based on physical, cultural, environmental and financial considerations. If only some of the fig trees are creating one or more problems (public/private) and cannot be fixed, then why consider removing them all?
1. If this is to be undertaken, then it should be on a staged basis over years rather than months, so that a replacement tree (s) has (have) time to grow before the next fig is removed. If this were to occur, we would like Council to consider some alternative replacement species, which are Australian natives, rather than an exotic.
7. Remove all of the fig trees
1. We understand that Magnolia grandiflora 'Exmouth' is favoured by Council, but we would respectfully suggestion that wider consultation is required on such an important issue. Some further suggestions for consideration include Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) or eumundi, Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo), Banksia integrafolia (Coastal Banksia) and Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad-leaf Paperbark).

For all options we would like to see a cost benefit analysis. Should this not be a mandatory consideration in any decision made by Council?