Call to overhaul Brisbane tree laws after 150-year-old giant felled

The loss of a 150-year-old ironbark has sparked calls for an overhaul of Council’s tree protection laws.

The axing of a gum tree believed to be 150 years old is just the latest in a devastating loss of large trees in one of Brisbane’s most exclusive suburbs, locals say.

Retired town planning expert John Brannock, a former adjunct professor at the University of Queensland, said Brisbane’s laws made it too easy for developers to override protections for significant trees.

He said laws in Noosa and Sunshine Coast councils, as well as in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide, made it far harder for developers to clear-fell development sites.

Prof Brannock said St Lucia, where the latest forest giant was felled, was one of the suburbs which has lost a large number of trees in the past two decades, urgently need a suburb-wide audit of significant trees.

St Lucia has been in the firing line because of the larger blocks, high prices for new homes and the relatively large number of houses dating from the 1950s and ’60s which are ripe for demolition.

Aerial photos taken in 2005 and in 2020 show a dramatic loss of tree cover in that time.

“The tree that was cut down in Baty St last week was an ironbark that looked like it was about 150 years old,’’ he said.

“From the growth rings on the stump it looked like it wasn’t under stress.

“It was right on the edge of the block. You could have split the block and still kept that tree.

“Since 2014, Brisbane City Council has made it very simple for builders or developers to lodge a development application to remove trees, overriding any vegetation protection order.’’

Prof Brannock said part of the problem was residents needed to lodge VPOs on individual trees, whereas in councils such as Noosa and the Sunshine Coast all trees within significant areas were protected.

A Baty St neighbour said they had seen kookaburras living in the ironbark, one of which returned after the last trunk was cut down and sat on the stump.

The Baty St house site after it was cleared.

They said VPO applications were submitted in March but tree loppers began work while that was still being assessed.

They said Council then revoked the VPO on the last remaining tree, on July 1.

“There’s nothing “clean” or “green” about these development practices which Council endorses, practices which certainly don’t achieve the goals of CityPlan to maintain the green and leafy nature of the suburb,’’ the neighbour, who did not want to be name, said.

“An arborist said the (Baty St) tree looked healthy, which would play a role in why it has survived for so long.

“He said it hadn’t been maintained well, but if the tree was to be kept all you’d need to do would be to remove some dead wood, maybe trim the crown if needed, remediate the soil.

Council Environment Chair, Tracy Davis, said Council’s priority was to ensure it balanced the needs of the environment with those of a growing city.

A kookaburra, which had lived in the ironbark, sits on one of the stumps after it was cut down.

“Council has proactively protected several established native trees in Highland Tce, Hawken Drive, Tenth Ave and Ninth Ave in St Lucia through the Local Law process, and I can confirm that Council is actively assessing several more vegetation protection nominations within St Lucia,’’ Cr Davis said.

“We encourage community members to nominate trees or vegetation that they believe are significant to the local community, for protection under the Local Law.

“We want to protect our green space and natural areas now and for generations to come and have a goal to achieve 40 per cent natural habitat cover in Brisbane by 2031.

“We are well on track to hit this, with currently 38.9 per cent natural habitat cover.

“We continue to plant trees in St Lucia and over the past two financial years – some noted plantings include: 60 Jacarandas trees, 127 trees planted in Robertson park, 50 trees planted along Sir Fred Schonell Drive and 162 planted by streetscape.’’

Council had previously refused or sought significant amendments to applications involving the removal of vegetation where the outcome does not meet the assessment benchmarks under City Plan.

It was considering undertaking a strategic review of vegetation within St Lucia for potential protection under the Local Law.