29/08/2026
Response to Council - The Coast Voice Article August 2026 p37
We disagree with some of the Council’s contentions:
1. Council have acknowledged that engineering plans were designed and then were the trees considered afterwards.
2. The arborist mentioned, plus others, gave different opinions regarding the range of solutions for drainage and mitigation of pavement damage. Drainage into the middle of the street is one example. The evidence suggests that road designs were first settled and only then it was checked to see the impact on the trees.
3. RTI application revealed that the project designer FMG originally recommended that the council consult an arborist independently, however council requested FMG arrange this themselves and emphasised “….It’d be ideal to brief them (the arborist) on the context of the community viewpoint..”. That is, the 13 residents who were consulted who wanted the trees removed.
3. Root zones in the street have not been confirmed. Engineering services that search for tree roots and other buried services have advised us that in many instances of urban trees near pavements the root zones may not be where expected and may not present major problems.
4. Council say trees are nearing the end of their natural life. This is denied. Elm trees can often live for 200 years or more. Trees in Campbell town which were recently preserved during road pavement renewals were scanned with technology to help estimate expected longevity. Previous arborist reports did not state that all of the trees were nearing their expected life nor were the majority unhealthy. Several of the trees that now need removing have been damaged by deliberate poisoning, not natural attrition. Council have admitted that they have not been sufficiently pro-active about addressing deliberate vandalism of these trees.
5. Council has a poor record on improving canopy, despite their rhetoric. The Hobbs parade road renovations from 2017, reveals the decline in canopy cover and the very poor outcomes of previous intervention. It would take approximately 270 of the trees (Crepe Myrtle) that council have designated as replacements for the Elms of Risby St to come near to the current tree canopy cover.
We do not claim that all these trees can or should be saved. We acknowledge the need for some mitigation and intervention for residents of the street to live safely.
We question Council’s genuine commitment to its greening strategy, which is an extremely important document with major implications for the health and well-being of all residents and visitors to the Central Coast.
We call for compromise and evidence based outcomes which also show a commitment to all Council policies and strategies, and which reflect the wishes of the wider community to adopt measures to save the trees and mitigate any negative impacts of the trees as borne out in our community survey.
Central Coast Council
The Coastal Voice