A NORFOLK Island pine, estimated to be more than 80 years old, is set to be the next piece of collateral damage from the NSW government’s controversial new bushfire tree clearing laws.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
On Friday as tree-cutting contractors came for the pine, on Riverview Avenue at Gerroa, a small group of residents scrambled to try to save it.
After pleading with the contractor they won a reprieve for the pine, but it may be short-lived, as the property owner seems to be within his rights to remove it.
Neighbour Dorothy Leyshan, 77, said she has watched the tree grow since she was five years old.
“It’s a healthy tree,” she said.
“It’s the biggest tree in Gerroa – it’s a Gerroa landmark.
“I felt sick to my stomach when I saw them tying it up to bring it down.”
Mrs Leyshan said the tree was used as habitat and a resting place for owls, black cockatoos, lorikeets and corellas, and she would tie herself to it if that’s what it came to.
She said the new clearing laws, which give broad scope to property owners, were a “loophole”.
“It’s ridiculous ... this is not a fire hazard,” she said.
“Since I was five there’s never been a fire down here.”
Under the new “10/50” definitions from the Rural Fire Service, any property owner within 350m of land zoned as bushfire-prone can remove a tree within 10m of their house, on their land.
The new rules have sparked controversy because they have allowed the clearing of large trees on waterfront land around Sydney Harbour – areas where there is little risk of bushfire, but millions of dollars worth of view.
In this case, the property comes within the rules because of a small piece of bushfire buffer zone near the beach.
Rob Neill, who owns the land, maintained there was a bushfire risk.
“The Rural Fire Service is forecasting a very [severe] fire season,” he said.
“We are in a legitimate fire risk area.
“It is appropriate for us to take these steps in the cool of reason, rather than when facing a wall of bushfire.”
Mr Neill, 70, said this is one of the reasons he decided the tree is simply in the “wrong place”.
“The tree drops rubbish all over the house,” he said.
“It’s on our property. We choose not to have that tree there. It’s within the rules of the RFS [10/50 regime].”
