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?

The future of the figs

In December Cr Gissane requested information about the Fig Trees in Toronto. The following information has since been provided.

The fate of Toronto's fig trees will be determined by the outcomes of a new LMCC  town centre project that will thoroughly investigate Toronto's main street with all information gathered pertaining to the trees helping to develop a way forward.

LMCC recognizes that a long term solution is needed to help address all issues financial, environmental and emotional regarding the trees. The Fig trees have been assessed and are deemed healthy.

The town centre project will look at the issues that will affect LMCC's ability ‘to maintain, future economic development and community needs. It will help prioritise areas to focus upon and develop a master plan.

LMCC recognizes the trees are indeed an important part of the main street landscape and contribute much to the character of the area. The investigation and master planning process will look objectively at the area and develop long term solutions that retain or improve the character of the streetscape.

LMCC continues to perform increased footpath inspections…to minimise any chances of trip hazards.  The most recent inspection was on the 5 January 2010. 

Inspections are also undertaken on the root intrusion of the Figs on the footpath, in particular the impact the root intrusions have on the storm water systems.  Whilst it is recognised that there has been some impact of the tree roots on storm water pipes, to-date there has been no formal insurance claims submitted to Council for damage to storm water facilities.

Toronto's Trees

Where do you stand on the trees of Toronto town?

The Lakes Mail has been raising awareness over the past few weeks on the possible fate of the Toronto figs. The issue has been described as one that will divide the community, but how will it be divided, it's a little bit more than Treehuggers v's treeloppers.

It could be divided by personal comfort factors?

• People who enjoy sitting in the shade or those that like sweltering whilst they dine in the sun.
• People who like walking along a shady and cooler boulevard or those that like to tan and feel the heat radiating off the footpath.
• People who like to window shop with the sun on their back, or those that like to linger longer in the shade.

It could be divided by cost?

• Business owners whose air conditioners don?t have to work as hard because of the extensive shade coverage or those business owners who like to hear the hum or the air-con cranking, and pay accordingly.
• Businesses who are prepared to pay thousands of dollars to remove the trees or those that will pay to treat the pipes to prevent root growth and blockages and keep the trees.

Or maybe it will divide along the lines of those with a more natural bent?

• Those who think a tree lined boulevard is aesthetically appealing and makes Toronto unique or those that don?t.
• People who appreciate the birdlife and the rarity of the roosting trees or those that see the birds as noise and mess.

On this point there are some places like Currumbin Bird Sanctuary in Queensland and more closer to home the Wetlands Centre that make money off encouraging bird and people interaction, such as breakfast with the birds. Perhaps the Toronto Chamber could investigate getting some funding to promote this rare attraction?

And has anyone considered where will the birds roost if all the trees go? The lorikeets that need these trees are the ones that frequent our gardens and make our backyards buzz with life and are a part of our bushland suburb.

This is a very similar situation to what?s happening with the Laman Street Figs in Newcastle, a quick fix solution is being touted by a few without a full investigation of a variety of options and the impacts on the many who have not been given a chance to voice their opinion.

Make your views known to the Toronto Chamber of Commerce, PO Box 382 ,Toronto 2283,  Phone 4950 5216, Email co-ordinator@torontochamber.com.au   and Lake Macquarie City Council Postal Address: Box 1906 Hunter Region Mail Centre 2310 or council@lakemac.nsw.gov.au

This issue will also be discussed at the monthly meeting of the Progress Association on Monday 7th December 7pm.