Sippy Downs resident ‘violated’ after council cuts down 20-year-old tree
A Sunshine Coast woman has been left devastated after council workers arrived at dawn to remove her 20-year-old tree, despite multiple assurances it wouldn’t happen.
A Sippy Downs residents feels “completely violated” after a tree on her property was cut down just days after the council allegedly repeatedly denied it would happen.
Tamara Laurence has lived in her house for the past two-and-a-half years, and had a 20 year old waterhousia tree outside of her property.
She said that the tree offered her house “lots of shade” as her house faces westerly.
“It didn’t fix everything but it certainly filtered a lot of the heat and the sun,” Ms Laurence said.
Her neighbour began complaining about the tree’s nuts staining his driveway, and its roots blocking his pipes which led to flooding.
Ms Laurence did notice there was some flood water collecting on the side of her house when she first moved in.
“Upon further investigation I found out the storm water drain was blocked with roots, which was not an uncommon situation,” Ms Laurence said.
“Obviously because the tree was on council land I initially contacted the council on the premise that they would unblock it.
“They said given that the tree is on council land the pipe is your asset, meaning you’re liable to maintain it.”
Ms Laurence had to pay $1,000 to get a plumber to fix her pipes, so she advised her neighbour to go through the same proceedings.
The neighbour was also claiming the tree began lifting the curb.
Ms Laurence said she had a conversation with the neighbour to not cut the tree down after he suggested it.
Following Ms Laurence's interaction with her neighbour, she called council to see whether the tree was going to be taken down.
“I was assured absolutely not and they even pulled up the map with the boundary,” Ms Laurence said.
“They said council doesn’t just get rid of trees, and that you would be notified if anything was to happen.”
Then, Ms Laurence came home on a Friday morning and noticed pink lines on either side of the tree.
She called council once again on Friday, and they assured her they would potentially be “putting in some root guards”.
The following Tuesday morning about 7am she heard a loud noise from outside of her house.
“I hear this racket and I’m thinking ‘wow, someone has got a serious lawnmower happening’, but then it was persistent,” Ms Laurence said.
“I walked towards the front of my house and I see out the front a big truck and two guys.
“I go out and I speak to one of the men, and I asked if they were just trimming the tree and he said ‘no, we are taking it down’.”
Ms Laurence said she felt “absolutely gut-wrenched” and “ignored”.
“I felt completely violated, that they can just come and do anything they like,” she said.
Ms Laurence found it especially frustrating as she made the efforts to make inquiries.
She also believes the mild flood water did not warrant the tree to be removed.
On the day of the incident, Ms Laurence made two phone calls to council, and sent an email with photos, but was not contacted.
At 10am the following day, a manger called her and agreed to visit her at her house.
During the meeting, the manager allegedly “falls on his sword”.
“He said it was my fault what can I do?” Ms Laurence said.
“I said there is no win for me here, and I will gain nothing to be happy about, so let’s be clear about that.”
She also asked to receive compensation for the $1,000 she spent on fixing her pipes.
“Since you’ve now decided it was the tree’s fault, I don’t see anyone offering me my $1000 back,” Ms Laurence said.
“Not that it’s about that, I’d rather keep the tree.”
The manager has said they will plant a new tree, and Ms Laurence will be issuing a formal complaint to council.
A Sunshine Coast Council spokeswoman said the tree was removed due to the “significant damage it was causing to underground drainage infrastructure”.
“Multiple options were explored in an effort to retain the tree, however, the necessary infrastructure repairs could not be completed without the tree’s removal,” the spokeswoman said.
“While one adjacent resident was consulted, our standard notification process was not followed, and a second neighbour did not receive the required written notice. We acknowledge this was a regrettable human error.”
She also confirmed council met with the resident to apologise, and are attempting to rectify the incident.
“We will be planting two new trees in the area, including one larger tree at the original site,” the spokeswoman said.
New beach crackdown: Where your dog will be banned
