The tree, which is close to a building at the rear of the property, was determined to be a hazard and the strata committee decided the best course of action was to have it cut down.

Advertise with News of The Area today.
It’s worth it for your business.
Message us.
Phone us – (02) 4981 8882.
Email us – media@newsofthearea.com.au

Apartment owner Kimberley Scott, said the decision does not reflect the desire of all residents.

“The committee made the decision at one of their meetings and the minutes stated [that they] ‘agreed to remove a large gum tree’, with no other information given as to the specific tree or the reasons for its removal,” Mr Scott said.

“Most of us assumed that it was a different tree, one that is a potential problem, on the property boundary.”

Mr Scott contacted the secretary directly to seek clarification on the decision and was told the tree in question was in fact a healthy and long standing one that, to his knowledge, had never before been considered as a problem.

By this stage however, the tree’s removal had already been scheduled by the committee and an arborist booked to bring it down.

Mr Scott said not enough time was given to discuss and dispute the committee’s decision.

Fate intervened on the scheduled day when the crane malfunctioned and the contracted company was unable to complete the work.

The removal was rescheduled to Friday, 15 November, and Mr Scott has rallied his neighbours to plead with the committee to reconsider its decision.

The Chairman of the Strata Committee composed a communication which was sent to all owners by Precise Property, the company responsible for strata management.

“I want to affirm that both myself and the committee fully support the decision to remove the tree, which has been made with the safety of residents in mind,” the email stated.

“The reasons outlined – risks from dropping branches, damage to property, and increased fire hazards – are significant concerns that we cannot overlook.”

In a return email, Mr Scott argued the tree’s branches “do not carry the same danger as a lot of other gums” and claimed there is “no likelihood of it catching fire and impacting the building”.

Mr Scott said the tree enriches the complex, offering shade and providing habitat for native birds and wildlife.

He has expressed concern regarding the limited recourse for he and like-minded owners to act for the tree’s preservation.

“Because it is within five metres of the rear building they don’t need to obtain approval to have it removed,” he said.

Another apartment owner, Brian Tehan, was equally bemused by the fire-risk claims.

“The claim that it’s a fire danger is someone having a joke, I presume?

“A lone tree in a block of flats certainly isn’t a fire danger.

“Spending $7500 to cut down a beautiful Angophora for no good reason is a waste of the funds and unnecessary waste of a significant tree.

“Just because you are able to cut down a tree without council permission doesn’t mean that you should.”

Robert Trikka, another owner, said the “shade and tranquillity provided by the tree cannot be underestimated”.

In response to this feedback the committee has decided to postpone the removal once again.

Owners will now participate in a ballot to determine whether the majority support the original decision to have the tree cut down.

In the meantime Mr Scott has appealed directly to members of Port Stephens Council to lend support to the cause.

“Council’s indiscriminate and ruthless rule allows any tree, regardless of its magnificence, its ecological significance as part of a smaller or larger ecosystem, whether or not it is a home to birds and creatures alike, to be cut down without any checks or balances or real justification.

“This is criminal and needs to change.

“This tree is not threatening life, limb nor building.

“It simply requires a bit of branch lopping to reduce a minimal amount of leaf and small branch matter from falling onto the roof.

“It is really a lack of maintenance issue.

“Are you able to do something to have this 80-year-old, thriving, living magnificent tree live out its life way beyond ours?”

Precise Property and Port Stephens councillors were contacted but did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

By Lindsay HALL