Sydney kids, no matter where they live, must have trees to climb
In most illegal tree removals, you might see perhaps a handful of trees removed or poisoned. That’s why the recent felling and poisoning of 265 old trees in Sydney’s Castle Cove has been so breathtaking and appalling.
This act – perpetrated by persons unknown – was not vandalism but theft of valuable community assets.
Future generations have been robbed of the benefits these trees – some of which were more than 80 years old – provided to our environment, the climate and as habitat for other plants and animals. It was theft on a grand scale.
Even at Poullet Street at Matraville trees are disappearing
We tend to undervalue the shade provided by trees when considering urban development, or even road works. But tree removals lead to more urban heat, which usually means higher electricity bills (as people crank up the air conditioner).
Large old trees are seen by some as an expendable nuisance. Some local council laws aim to protect trees of a certain size, but fines for illegal removals are small.
How vandals are getting away with destroying Sydney’s trees
Reports of illegal tree killing and vandalism skyrocketed across Sydney in 2023, prompting councils to issue an urgent plea to the state government for more assistance in prosecuting people destroying the city’s natural assets.A Herald analysis of council data shows local governments have received more than 1000 reports of trees being damaged or killed in the past 12 months. Multiple councils, including Sutherland Shire, Ku-ring-gai and Liverpool, had significant increases in reports of tree vandalism in 2023 compared to previous years.There were also two mass tree killing incidents, unprecedented in recent Sydney history, in 2023, with more than 260 trees hacked, chainsawed and poisoned in Castle Cove, and up to 300 trees and other plants felled in Longueville in Lane Cove.Councils, cash-strapped and under increasing pressure from the state government amid ongoing fights over development, are lobbying the Minns government for increased support to investigate and prosecute tree vandals.Councils can issue fines for incidents of tree vandalism of $3000 for individuals and $6000 for companies, and fines can reach $1 million for individuals and $5 million for companies if hauled through the courts.Mayors, council staff and the federal member for North Sydney Kylea Tink are lobbying Planning Minister Paul Scully and Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig for help to investigate acts of vandalism and for the power to issue tougher penalties. They say they are not resourced to carry out criminal-level investigations that would ordinarily be the job of the police.In the north, Ku-ring-gai Council reported the greatest increase in tree vandalism this year, receiving 618 reports of tree breaches (up from 487 the year before). Of those, council officers issued 90 penalty infringement notices.In the Sutherland Shire, reports of tree vandalism jumped from 300 in 2022 to 465 in 2023. Waverley Council received 22 reports of tree poisonings in the past 12 months and issued penalties for 10 of them, while neighbouring Woollahra Council is currently investigating four incidents of tree vandalism, for which a spokesperson said it was “in a strong position for successful prosecution”.Liverpool Council had 30 reports of tree vandalism in 2023, an increase from 22 in the previous year, and Parramatta Council received 48 reports of public tree vandalism over the last six months. Burwood Council was the only one in Sydney to report a “significant drop” in tree vandalism in 2023.
Reports of illegal tree killing and vandalism skyrocketed across Sydney in 2023, prompting councils to issue an urgent plea to the state government for more assistance in prosecuting people destroying the city’s natural assets.
A Herald analysis of council data shows local governments have received more than 1000 reports of trees being damaged or killed in the past 12 months. Multiple councils, including Sutherland Shire, Ku-ring-gai and Liverpool, had significant increases in reports of tree vandalism in 2023 compared to previous years.
There were also two mass tree killing incidents, unprecedented in recent Sydney history, in 2023, with more than 260 trees hacked, chainsawed and poisoned in Castle Cove, and up to 300 trees and other plants felled in Longueville in Lane Cove.
Councils, cash-strapped and under increasing pressure from the state government amid ongoing fights over development, are lobbying the Minns government for increased support to investigate and prosecute tree vandals.
Councils can issue fines for incidents of tree vandalism of $3000 for individuals and $6000 for companies, and fines can reach $1 million for individuals and $5 million for companies if hauled through the courts.
Mayors, council staff and the federal member for North Sydney Kylea Tink are lobbying Planning Minister Paul Scully and Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig for help to investigate acts of vandalism and for the power to issue tougher penalties. They say they are not resourced to carry out criminal-level investigations that would ordinarily be the job of the police.
In the north, Ku-ring-gai Council reported the greatest increase in tree vandalism this year, receiving 618 reports of tree breaches (up from 487 the year before). Of those, council officers issued 90 penalty infringement notices.
In the Sutherland Shire, reports of tree vandalism jumped from 300 in 2022 to 465 in 2023.
Waverley Council received 22 reports of tree poisonings in the past 12 months and issued penalties for 10 of them, while neighbouring Woollahra Council is currently investigating four incidents of tree vandalism, for which a spokesperson said it was “in a strong position for successful prosecution”.
Liverpool Council had 30 reports of tree vandalism in 2023, an increase from 22 in the previous year, and Parramatta Council received 48 reports of public tree vandalism over the last six months. Burwood Council was the only one in Sydney to report a “significant drop” in tree vandalism in 2023.
How tree killing happens
When a tree is the only thing getting in the way of a harbour view and a drastically increased house value, some Sydneysiders have no qualms in getting illicit help.Those seeking to kill a tree with as little noise as possible simply inject it with poison. Some drill holes into the trees, a practice nicknamed by arborists as ‘the Makita borer’ pest.Chopping down a tree entirely takes a bit more work, but it’s just as simple. You just need to know who to call.Some names are well-known within the about 1600-strong arborist community in NSW as being willing to cut down trees without the right approvals. Clive Woodknutt, the director of Bohmer’s Tree Care, is not one of them. He was once asked by a homeowner to illegally cut down a tree, and when he told the person it would come with a hefty fine from the council, the homeowner offered to just pay him the value of the fine. (He declined the offer.)But those who do accept almost always come to the soon-to-be crime scene in the dead of night. Some council staff, who were not allowed to comment publicly, report spotting unmarked utes with no licence plates heading into the areas.Garnet Brownbill, a local resident who finds vandalised trees across Sydney and reports them to local councils, says the most common tactic he has identified is poisoning under the grass at the base of a tree.
“The trees go from green to brown in one day,” Brownbill said. “You just buy some concentrate, and once it’s in the sap system, it runs up the bloodstream of the tree.“It’s a really bad state of affairs,” he said. “We just don’t place much value on them.” He has reported over 20 acts of tree vandalism to local councils via the SnapSendSolve app.Some of the city’s oldest trees are worth up to $50,000, when age and location are considered. Tink is pushing local councils and Hoenig to count trees as assets on council budgets, by placing monetary values on each tree council owns.“Nowhere on a council’s balance sheet are green assets captured, which is kind of crazy in a world where the value of a tree is increasing exponentially,” she said.
When a tree is the only thing getting in the way of a harbour view and a drastically increased house value, some Sydneysiders have no qualms in getting illicit help.
Those seeking to kill a tree with as little noise as possible simply inject it with poison. Some drill holes into the trees, a practice nicknamed by arborists as ‘the Makita borer’ pest.
Chopping down a tree entirely takes a bit more work, but it’s just as simple. You just need to know who to call.
Some names are well-known within the about 1600-strong arborist community in NSW as being willing to cut down trees without the right approvals.
Clive Woodknutt, the director of Bohmer’s Tree Care, is not one of them. He was once asked by a homeowner to illegally cut down a tree, and when he told the person it would come with a hefty fine from the council, the homeowner offered to just pay him the value of the fine. (He declined the offer.)
But those who do accept almost always come to the soon-to-be crime scene in the dead of night. Some council staff, who were not allowed to comment publicly, report spotting unmarked utes with no licence plates heading into the areas.
Garnet Brownbill, a local resident who finds vandalised trees across Sydney and reports them to local councils, says the most common tactic he has identified is poisoning under the grass at the base of a tree.
“The trees go from green to brown in one day,” Brownbill said. “You just buy some concentrate, and once it’s in the sap system, it runs up the bloodstream of the tree.
“It’s a really bad state of affairs,” he said. “We just don’t place much value on them.” He has reported over 20 acts of tree vandalism to local councils via the SnapSendSolve app.
Some of the city’s oldest trees are worth up to $50,000, when age and location are considered. Tink is pushing local councils and Hoenig to count trees as assets on council budgets, by placing monetary values on each tree council owns.
“Nowhere on a council’s balance sheet are green assets captured, which is kind of crazy in a world where the value of a tree is increasing exponentially,” she said.
Prosecution is near-impossible
If someone stole, vandalised, or destroyed virtually anything of material value, police would investigate the matter as a criminal offence. But when something happens to a tree, the responsibility to investigate falls on local councils.
Tree vandalism is illegal under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
From 2018 to 2022, only 19 cases relating to trees, vegetation or biodiversity were prosecuted by councils in the Land and Environment Court.
“The issue for us is that unless you get an admission of guilt by someone, or you’ve got very strong evidence of who actually did the act of killing the tree, the burden of proof is just too high [to prosecute],” said Hills Shire Council general manager Michael Edgar, whose council had received 63 reports of tree removal and bushland clearing last financial year.
“We can see it’s been vandalised, but unless someone admits, or someone has very good proof, your chances of a prosecution are pretty low.”
“We will investigate the landowners and take in other evidence that might be available, or [see] whether there’s cameras in the area,” Edgar said. But councils do not have the same level of powers to investigate that police do, and often hit dead ends in their investigations.
Those killing the trees also know they can keep appealing the decision in the courts, forcing councils to give up the case before they lose more money.
Ku-ring-gai Council, which has almost doubled the number of penalty infringement notices it has issued over just three years, wrote to Scully in May asking the government to legislate tougher penalties for tree vandalism.
In response to questions from the Herald about action the government would take to bring down the number of killed trees each year, Scully said he had “asked the department to consult with councils to better understand the issues and other enforcement measures before progressing potential policy changes”.
“Any suggestions from councils in considering both penalties, but also better means of identifying culprits, will be considered,” he said.
Hoenig, who was mayor of Botany Council for more than three decades, did not respond to this masthead’s specific questions about supporting councils who requested help with the issue.
As Sydney moves to higher density living – and we need to – there must be a focus on green spaces. While more of us live in apartments and townhouses, we must make sure there are appropriate options for generations of screen-focused kids to spend time outside, even in a warming climate.
“But tell me,” Yusuf/Cat Stevens asked, “where do the children play?”
Too few of our children, for starters, play under the shade of trees. And fewer still play “in” trees, as their parents once did. In fact, not even one in five of today’s Australian children climbs trees compared with the 65 per cent of adults who climbed trees during their childhoods. That’s according to a study of 1000 people cited in a report last year, Trees: The Forgotten Heroes of our Health, by the WWF-Australia and Doctors for the Environment Australia.
What brought Australia’s children out of its trees? No doubt the constant distractions on their screens, which were not a temptation for previous generations of kids, have played a critical role. But we also need to ensure that this generation of kids, no matter where they live, have trees to climb.
Last week, this masthead reported on the impacts of tree canopy cover in different local councils, showing that while some have increased it – Penrith has gone from 10 to 16 per cent coverage – other areas, such as Sydney’s “leafy” north, have dropped from 38 to 33 per cent. Across Greater Sydney, the tree cover is only 21 per cent. That makes the state government’s target of 40 per cent cover by 2036 look highly ambitious. By comparison, Finland’s tree coverage in urban areas is 66 per cent. In Savona, Italy, the urban area with the highest tree coverage, it is 83 per cent. For the City of London, however, it is less than 1 per cent.
Why do trees matter? The World Economic Forum says they provide a natural climate control and help to avoid “urban heat islands” in highly dense and concrete-heavy areas. On that note, consider a tale of two parallel streets in the Sydney suburb of Toongabbie. Those streets, WWF-Australia reports, are virtually identical but for one important difference: only one is lined with trees. On a hot day last February, the surface temperature in the tree-lined street reached 29.3 degrees. In the unshaded street, it reached 50.1 degrees – more than 20 degrees difference.
At the beginning of December, we had days over 40 degrees. No one can play safely outside in that heat. We need effective shading and shelter in public spaces as such extreme temperatures become the summer norm. It isn’t fair to say “go play outside” if there isn’t a space, let alone a well-designed one, to play in.
Play equipment and dark-coloured floors can become so hot that they cause burns, warns Sebastian Pfautsch, professor of urban management and planning at Western Sydney University. Pfautsch, who has written on the impact of climate change on outdoor play spaces, offers this reassurance: “Surface temperatures were significantly reduced in the shade and never reached burn threshold temperatures.”
Of course, trees absorb carbon dioxide and promote biodiversity. For cities, however, in the context of increasing urban density, they also build communities. Green spaces such as parks, and blue spaces such as beaches, rivers and lakes, bring people outdoors for exercise, or simply to gather. They are fundamental to local communities and their mental health, especially for families. Jocelyn Brewer, cyberpsychologist and founder of Digital Nutrition, says: “If we are concerned about getting young people away from devices, we need to give them meaningful alternatives. They need positive structure to manage offline ‘boredom’.”
If you love a challenge in that “new year, new you” vein, the organisation 1000 Hours Outside has suggestions: three to four hours outdoors in January, down to about one or two in July. That’s easy, according to a girlfriend of mine with a toddler. She might find it less easy when her youngster is a teenager. Quite frankly, the local park often can’t compete with the dynamic adventures of Minecraft and Roblox.
In March, Jonathan Haidt will release a new book, Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Haidt, Zach Rausch and Jean Twenge have been tracking a meta analysis of the impacts of social media on teen mental health. They discuss social media and time spent online being a great danger for kids. They address kids’ fear of missing out, saying: “FOMO had the largest relative contribution in modelling problematic smartphone use severity.” How is a basketball hoop with zero shade meant to compete?
Meanwhile, a previous Haidt book, The Coddling of the American Mind, suggests parents have come to think it is somehow safer for their kids to spend time on Roblox than to climb a tree. They would be the same parents whose lives were enriched as children by climbing trees.
RELATED ARTICLE
We can’t build only playgrounds designed for little kids. We need places for teenagers to hang out, without immediately assuming their activities will be nefarious. During the lockdowns of 2020-21, young people built BMX tracks and ramps to cure boredom. Now they need skate parks, ovals, basketball courts, rock-climbing walls and bike tracks. They need places to swim – and they must learn how to swim. (Drowning rates increased by more than 15 per cent after the COVID-19 lockdowns.)
We need enough of these spaces so that kids can walk to them from their homes. They will come home calmer and happier. As Brewer says: “It is not just about taking the green space and repurposing but planning for green space.”
As we grow as a city, we need to imagine a place for the people growing in it, too.
