Saturday, 15 November 2014

The unhappiness over plans to remove Maclean's most prominent trees continues

McLachlan Park, Maclean, November 2014

Letter to the editor in The Daily Examiner 12 November 2014:

Keep the camphors

I HAVE followed the comments about the removal of the camphor laurel trees within the Clarence Valley Council area with great interest.

I am neither a "greenie" nor a "tree hugger," but I think that going to the extreme and wanting to remove all the trees mentioned is a bit radical.

If the people or persons concerned within the Council, and the general public would only step back and view the situation before engaging the chainsaws, they would see that the "old" camphor laurel trees have been around longer than most of them.

If these people were observant enough, they would see that most of the dairy farms had some of these trees as shade for the cattle, horse and farm hands.

Observation number 1: There are very few, if any, seedlings of this particular variety of camphor laurel growing in close proximity. Check the area adjacent to the Boulevard and see for yourself.

Observation number 2: The variety in the Bangalow area is of a different growth habit, namely tall, multi-trunked with larger dark green foliage and tends to produce very readily from seed. Some of these have found their way to the Lower Clarence area, and some have been removed.

So, I say to Council, before you remove any large camphor laurel trees from within the council area, check the variety first, and also send your relevant personnel to a plant identification course.

To think that Port Jackson figs, for one, have been suggested as replacement trees for the Boulevard is absolutely horrendous, to say the least.

Ficus trees in general have very invasive root systems, and would undermine the levy wall as well as up lifting the bitumen street. So once again, Council and councillors, think long and hard about this situation.

It seems that the Council made a mistake in filling the park in the first place and now want to beautify the park at ratepayers' expense.

If the reason for the expensive facelift of the park is for additional parking, then why doesn't the Council purchase the empty block across the street and utilise that as a car park.

Probably wouldn't cost as much as a makeover.

Ken Woods

No comments: