My Account
Developer’s response: Oak grove important
Chris Murphy, Oaks on Neville, Group director. Published January 17, 2018
The article on the oaks in Neville Street (MM Dec 13) could not be more incorrect and warrants rebuttal.
The fact is that the Oaks owner is determined to do what it can to preserve the oak grove and to say otherwise is simply wrong.
Before the property was purchased by the Oaks nothing was done to prolong the life of these trees, and they stood diseased and neglected. In recent years, three arborists’ reports have confirmed the trees are diseased and in decline. Though diseased, the most significant contributor to the decline of the trees is age. The arborists say trees are reaching the limits of the life span for this species of oak in this region.
It is the case that some trees were removed to accommodate the development, but this was done with Council consent and was undertaken some time ago so is not related to the current discussion.
The Oaks owner has, at the recommendation of independent arborists and with the approval of Council arborists, adopted a maintenance plan which includes pruning of the oak grove as needed and approved by Council from time to time. This work is intended to prolong the life of the trees as long as is possible and has already had some very positive impact.
There is no certainty regarding the life of the trees. Soil and foliage testing has confirmed the disease as one that we cannot reverse. The arborists say some trees are not likely to live long but with careful management some may still be there for many years to come.
Trees will be removed when their health is such that Council arborists hold the view that a tree must be removed but not otherwise. The arborist’s plan recommends a replanting programme that extends 25 or so years into the future to ensure the area remains populated with significant trees when the existing trees do succumb to disease and age.
The current public discussion would seem to be the result of an ill-informed vocal few too readily accepting as fact a bundle of half-truths. It is the writer’s hope that informed consideration of the matter will relieve those who are unnecessarily concerned.
If, after understanding what is set out above, anyone can see merit in arguing with the approach that has been adopted by the Oaks owner, being the action recommended by successive independent arborists and approved by Council, and the action that is responsible for the improved condition of the oak grove and most likely to prolong the lives of the oaks, then in this writer’s opinion they probably deserve the sleepless nights and anxiety-related unrest their lack of objectivity may cause.
Editor’s note: In both stories on the future of the oak trees in Neville Street the developer was given ample opportunity to comment prior to publication. MM welcomes this clarification of those comments, which the response from readers and potential residents appears to have generated.
Reject rodeos
R Marinkovich, Rodney. Published January 17, 2018
I am horrified by the footage showing distressed and provoked animals at rodeos each year (MM December 13). I’m a rural person with many animals, including a horse.
It’s not just townies that find rodeos objectionable. All the rural people I know agree that rodeo is a relic of the past and, just like circus animals, part of history we don’t need to perpetuate.
