Saturday, September 14, 2024

WILL THE ARTIST COME BACK??

IN THE EXAMINER: "Where would an artist live in Launceston? Most are romantics; they would perch themselves on the Cataract Gorge cliffside, if they could, making art and watching the waters rush by.


And for nearly three decades, plenty of them did just that.

Almost every year since 1993, painters and poets and writers and photographers spent weeks living in the King's Bridge Cottage, their only job to produce pieces.

They would sit on the deck of the heritage building - one of, if not the, most iconic in the city - astride their easel, maybe, or fountain pen in hand. But no longer.

The artist in residence program that creatives of all creeds benefited from, a fixture of the building for 30 years, has faded away.

For the past four years, no one has lived in the cottage. It looks tired and a little shabby: the paint is weak in patches and its red roof is zebra-lined with black moss and spotted with lichen.

Though it hasn't, in any real semblance, returned to the same state of disrepair it was in when its last caretaker left in 1981, the same year it was renovated to house the now defunct 'Launceston City Council's Artist-in-Residence program'.

Which begs the question: what happened to it?

It's been a long while since the first artist experienced it - the landscape painter John Wolseley, who's now represented in the National Gallery of Victoria, in 1993. A good deal of time has also passed since it was planned to be "refreshed" in 2018.

That was to coincide with major renovations the site underwent the year prior. The interior had been painted, new storage areas and kitchen benchtops were fitted, and furniture, shelving and internet access added.

The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery - who did, and still do, manage the building on the council's behalf - were said to have plans for a residency of "international-standard". Artists, historians and scientists were expected.

It never eventuated.

The last artist-in-residence as the King's Bridge Cottage was Sandra Pearce, who spent two weeks in the Cottage in November of 2016. A printmaker, Pearce made a suite of postcard-size pieces, silhouettes of wrens in kangaroo grass.

The cottage has been unused since. The council's chief executive officer, Sam Johnson, euphemistically said the program was "rested" several years ago due to other program priorities and initiatives. And the site now no longer meets contemporary standards for accessibility.

As such, QVMAG has no plans to revive the program. What will happen to it is, as yet, unknown. The council has said they are looking into "future community uses for the iconic building," according to Mr Johnson.
Artist in residence at the King's Bridge Cottage, Elizabeth
Pedler, of Perth, in years gone by. File picture by Paul Scambler


In Launceston now there is only a single artist in residence program within the city limits: the 'Tasmanian Residency for Independent Practice' at a building on Wellington Street owned by Assembly 197, the home of the triumvirate of TasDance, Situate and Mudlark Theatre Company.

In the north of the state, there is also The Glover Country Residency and a residency in Poatina offered by Performing Lines."


Most are romantics; they would perch themselves on the Cataract Gorge cliffside, if they could, making art and watching the waters rush by.

And for nearly three decades, plenty of them did just that.

Almost every year since 1993, painters and poets and writers and photographers spent weeks living in the King's Bridge Cottage, their only job to produce pieces.
As such, QVMAG has no plans to revive the program
"future community uses for the iconic building," according to Mr Johnson
Sam Johnson, euphemistically said the program was "rested" several years ago
plans for a residency of "international-standard". Artists, historians and scientists were expected.
the now defunct 'Launceston City Council's Artist-in-Residence program'.
The artist in residence program that creatives of all creeds benefited from, a fixture of the building for 30 years, has faded away.
Almost every year since 1993, painters and poets and writers and photographers spent weeks living in the King's Bridge Cottage, their only job to produce pieces.

Wednesday, September 11, 2024

IRONIC ...........




OPEN LETTER THE VALUE OF A TREE

 THE VALUE OF A TREE: Nothing or Something!?

 To whoever this may concern,

 

Apropos a telephone conversation yesterday I undertook to provide some internet references to contextualise the proposition I was putting  given that we were for whatever reason very during that conversation we were often speaking at cross purposes relative to place placemaking, CULTURALlandscaping and my research.

 

Make of this information what you will as I will in regard to assertions made to me – essentially intuition based so far as I can tell. The antithesis to “monitorisation” of trees is an interesting idea albeit that that wasn’t and isn’t the point I was attempting to promote. Yes, I was suggesting that it is possible to put a dollar value on a tree but that is not at all the same thing as “monitorisation”. Value relative to a standard gives a subjective value based on other factors as it is with gold.

 

Anyway, anyone may well glean something from the information provided here and I trust that they are able to.

 

What is of real interest here in the case of this DA the assessments made have essentially been made in a vacuum and the outcome is surprising to the extent that without a ‘standard’ to work to the deliberation turned out as it did and without SECTION 65 of thec Localn Govt. Act being fulsomely complied with.

 


It is strange what can be achieved by subtraction.

 


https://onetreeaustralia.blogspot.com/p/stategic-plan.html

 


GO TO https://woodblasted.blogspot.com/

 



CLICK HERE TO SEE MORE

 

 

A CULTURAL LANDSCAPING STRATEGY

 

PURPOSE
To acknowledge trees in their places and the part they play in cultural landscaping and environmental viability … ONEtree at a time.

OBJECTIVES

• To respectfully honour trees, ONEtree at a time, within an ECOnetwork and the circumstances within which humanity now exists while looking ahead in a changing world.

• To build, develop and assist in sustaining trees in places, in context of their ecosystems and in their CULTURALlandscapes – urban, rural, industrial and in 'natural environments'.

• To initiate projects and programs that belong to and in places that honour and celebrate the important contributions trees make to cult CULTURALlandscapes and the communities that shape and make them and belong to and in them.

• To commission 'makers' , cultural producers and/or networks of makers, to realise a work/s work collaboratively or cooperatively relative to a ONEtree initiative. 

• To generate and seek funding and in-kind support for ONEtree initiates within CULTURALlandscapes  – local, regional, national. 

• To publish, promote and market ONEtree initiates in CULTURALlandscapes to the Communities of Ownership and Interest relative to ONEtree initiates and the cultural discourses that give such projects sustenance. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES


Notwithstanding that open question that has been hanging in the air forever to do with 'placedness' and CULTURALlandscapes  being the imperative that shapes and makes 'human cultural realities'  albeit that there is indeed another way to think about all this. 

Alternatively, communities might see it as being that it is 'human cultural realities' that ultimately determines 'placedness' and thus it is their placedness that is the 'shaping mechanism' in CULTURALlandscapes.

Whatever it is, currently humanity is faced with dynamic change largely of its own making and there is no escaping that reality. – ideologically, politically socially and culturally. 

When trees are imagined as a 'resource'  just so much wood – trees become vulnerable, sometimes expendable, often valueless – typically so and all too often. Importantly, in the context of a cultural landscaping where 'places' are understood to belong to 'people' rather than people and communities belonging to, and in, their cultural landscape, their places, this can become a point of conflict relative to the imperatives embedded in value systems and a place’s placedness. 

It is particularly so in the context of:

  Dynamic change relative to impending climate change; and
  Cultural change relative to emerging and evolving technologies; and
  The increasing likelihood of virulent global pandemics; and consequently
  Cultural realities are faced with managing 'their place' in evolving and sustainable economies and in ecosystems within which 'trees' as 'carbon sinks and climate modifiers' play an important part. 

ONEtree at a time, these things might well be addressed in yet to be realised ways working from old and largely redundant knowledge and value systems. Moreover, in the context of what might be imagined as NEWtechnologies in a post(?) pandemic crisis and the as yet to be discovered unanticipated consequences of 'change' where trees’ values shift and collectively trees.  

 

Sadly, what humanity is doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what much of humanity is haplessly doing to doing to itself and to one another. Because of a long and purposeful life Sir David Attenborough has observed that “ancient trees are precious. There is little else on Earth that plays host to such a rich community of life within a single living organism.” So, the trees we encountered while out on a stroll reveal a lot about a places’ value, its soul, its realities, its deep histories.  In reality any culture is no more valuable than any of its trees.

 

ONEtree at a time, every tree we honour and value, we invest in our placedness, and we add value to our in CULTURALlandscapes.  The stock market is filled with individuals who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing. We need to understand the underlying value of our investment in our CULTURALlandscapes rather than just focusing on its NOWprice. This highlights the need for a fundamental analysis of operational value systems and a focus on a place’ long-term potential and value – and by extension a place’s trees. 

 

A TREE VALUING STRATEGY.

 

  Deem that a tree in an urban landscape has a dollar vale based on its volume in litres; and

  Deem that the dollar value can be determined subjectively relative to environmental, social, cultural factors per litre with minimum being $1 per litre and the maximum $10 per litre.

  Deem that tree’s ‘value’  dollar, environmental, social, and cultural – will be assessed by an independent ‘e4xpert’ at arm’s length; and

  Deem that if a tree is to be removed from a cultural landscape the value of its loss will be offset by an agreed compensatory strategy – fiscal, technical, heritage, cultural, whatever – that is commensurate with the circumstance and relative to a tree’s or community of trees ‘deemed value/s’.

 



GO TO https://tazmuze7250.blogspot.com/p/ylork-park-elm-da.html

 

REPRESENTATION: I submit here my objection to the ill-considered removal of this significant tree located at York Park 2 Invermay Road Invermay and I do so having considered a number of issues. Notably I contacted the named planning officer for the DA seeking further information relevant to the determination that this tree in this place and was unsuccessful in receiving any further information beyond the scant and subjective information embodied in the Development Application. 

 

Curiously, I was directed to the CEO should I wish to gain further information relevant to this DA and I have not done so under the current circumstances. However, it needs to be said that this DA bears all the hallmarks of being put together in the absence of any significant community consultation. In addition, there is no apparent evidence that there has been any attempt to place a ‘value’ of any kind on this significant tree situated as it is on a heritage site. 

 

That is concerning in the light of the city’s ‘GREENING LAUNCESTON POLICY’ and Council’s 2019 decollation of a CLIMATE EMERGENCY.

 

In the here and now it needs to be said that at every opportunity trees need to be valued and likewise appropriately evaluated by professionals with the skills, experience and domain knowledge . There is no evidence than any attempt has been made give this tree a value and then determine what needs to be determined in the light of the value ascribed. The attitude adopted at the beginning of a task, more than anything else, will affect its successful outcome or otherwise.

 

So, what values can be ascribed to this tree?

 

In May in Adelaide the State Govt set some benchmarks for ‘valuing’ trees in Adelaide – see notes below. This is more than interesting when considered against discussions elsewhere about placing a monetary value on a tree. This has now been done in Adelaide. 

 

There have also been discussions about establishing a formular for ascribing a dollar value to a tree. Given that it is possible to calculate the volume a tree occupies it is relatively simple task ascribe a value per litre of volume of canopy. 

 

Say a litre of volume is given the value of $1, and a tree’s canopy is calculated as being 1,000 litres its value will be $1,000. If it were 10,000 litres its assigned value would be $10,000. If as is the case in Adelaide this sum is dedicated to offsetting the loss of canopy via the planting of other trees towards canopy restoration, real world pragmatic accountability becomes a possibility. There is no evidence of this class of thinking reflected in the proposition that this tree can and should be removed without consequence.

 

  1. This elm’s canopy value has not been ascribed and that is concerning!
  2. The tree’s carbon sequestration – current and potential – has not been evaluated in any way and that too is concerning!
  3. Council’s planners have made a determination – apparently in isolation – that this tree impedes the design process for the development and no evidence as to how or why this subjective assessment has been arrived at, and that too is concerning!
  4. There has not been any apparent consideration given to what happens to the wood/timber in this tree in the event the tree is felled, and that too is concerning!
  5. There is now evidence that this tree’s heritage values have been considered in the architect’s brief, and that too is concerning!
  6. Moreover, given York Park’s extensive Community of Ownership and Interest (COI), there is no evidence on show that talks about taking the COI’s concerns, sensibilities or cultural values into account in reference to the overall development and/or this tree’s significance, and that too is concerning given that what is at hand is an exercise in placemaking!

 

In the light of all this I submit that the case for this tree’s removal has NOT been made and thus every effort must now be made and every step taken to preserve it despite the officer’s subjective and one dimensional assessment – essentially made in isolation.

 

Ray Norman

Cultural Producer, Cultural Geographer & Researcher

 

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

eMAIL:  raynorman7250@gmail.com


 

TREE VALUE REFERENCE

 


PREMIER: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peter_Malinauskas

The South Australian Government is taking immediate action to better protect Adelaide’s urban tree canopy and safeguard large, mature trees from destruction.

New planning regulations have been introduced to protect a greater number of trees, delivering on the government’s commitment to implement Australia’s best practice tree protections.

Taking immediate effect, the new regulations will protect trees with a smaller trunk circumference. The trunk size for regulated trees will be reduced from two metres to one metre, while significant trees will go from three metres to two.

Exemptions for trees based on distance from homes and pools has also been reduced. Now only trees within three metres from a home or pool will be able to be removed without approval, whereas the old regulations allowed the removal of trees within 10 metres.

The new regulations place pruning limits on regulated and significant trees allowing only 30 percent of the tree’s canopy to be removed every five years.

The changes also provide flexibility to adapt the exempt species list to local needs and community views through a notice on the PlanSA website.

Fees for destroying or removing protected trees will also increase, better reflecting the cost of tree replacement. Offset fees for a regulated tree increase from $326 to $1000 and from $489 to $1500 for a significant tree.

The money collected from the removal of trees goes into either local councils’ urban tree funds or into the State Government’s Planning and Development Fund. The money is used to either plant, establish and maintain trees, or to purchase land to preserve or accommodate the planting of new trees.

These actions recognise the important role Adelaide’s mature trees play in promoting community wellbeing, supporting biodiversity and reducing the urban heat effect.

These changes were guided by bipartisan recommendations from the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of Parliament which had been asked for advice on further tree protections following their Inquiry into the Urban Forest.

The new regulations were also developed with advice from the State Planning Commission, based on University of Adelaide research, and recommendations from the Expert Panel reviewing the implementation of South Australia’s planning system.

The Minister for Planning has also requested that the State Planning Commission:

· Prepare a design standard to provide minimum urban tree planting and maintenance requirements for public areas in greenfield developments.

· Amend planning rules to also consider a tree’s urban canopy contribution as part of assessing whether it can be removed.

· Strengthen planning rules to support design innovation and flexibility to retain large trees.

· Investigate ways to fast-track approvals for tree removal within three metres of a dwelling or swimming pool where offset fees are paid.

· Extend urban tree canopy protections to greenfield developments in ‘Master Planned Neighbourhood Zones’ and townships.

· Extend regulated and significant tree protections to townships, capturing urban areas beyond metropolitan Adelaide.

Existing development applications and approvals will have 12 months to be actioned before being impacted by these changes.

A table outlining some of the key changes can be found below and for further information visit the PlanSA website(external site).


Quotes

Attributable to Nick Champion

South Australia will go from having the weakest tree protection policies in the country to the most comprehensive, as we deliver on our commitment to protect and improve our urban canopy.

Tree protection is the number one issue that is raised with me, and these new policy additions means a greater number of trees in this state will be protected from the chop.

These changes support work to create the first urban greening strategy for Adelaide and help deliver the government’s commitment to increase greening in our neighbourhoods, improve urban biodiversity and address the loss of mature trees.

The new regulations will come into effect immediately to safeguard all trees that are protected under these changes.

Attributable to Joanna Wells, Conservation SA Outreach Coordinator

Conservation SA congratulates the State Government on delivering these much-needed tree laws to all South Australians. They represent a significant body of work, by community members, the conservation sector, and the government.

Conservation SA is pleased that South Australia now has tree protections that recognise the need to protect existing canopy.

Tree canopy and biodiversity is recognised as significant contributors to both mental and physical health: when our trees win, we all win. This is indeed a huge win for the people of South Australia, on so many fronts and across so many portfolios.

These are significant improvements on current legislation and the further work required of the State Planning Commission will see creative thinking to enable the retention of even more trees become 'business as usual' for developers.

We're pleased that the government has embraced the evidence-based approach taken by this community campaign for tree protections and worked to halt the loss of canopy across Adelaide.

Attributable to Mayor Dean Johnson, Local Government Association President

These changes are a positive outcome toward better protecting trees across South Australia and are what the LGA has been calling for in our advocacy to government.

Councils have made it clear that under the current regulations, it was far too easy to remove trees or excessively prune them with little consequence. These amendments take meaningful steps to close these loopholes.

To achieve the tree canopy cover target outlined in the Greater Adelaide 30-Year Plan and the Urban Greening Strategy, it's critical we increase tree plantings on both public and private land.

The local government sector looks forward to continuing working alongside the State Government to achieve this.

 

Ray Norman

Cultural Producer, Cultural Geographer & Researcher

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

eMAIL:  raynorman7250@gmail.com




Tuesday, September 10, 2024

ONEtree in focus

ONEtree and way too much talking, talking


An 80-year-old Dutch elm tree is now officially blocking the $130 million York Park redevelopment. City of Launceston councillors failed to agree on the tree's fate after the Department of State Growth sought its removal to facilitate the redevelopment of the facility, also known as UTAS Stadium. A private consortium has lodged a $2.3b new stadium and precinct proposal in Hobart Councillors were first presented with a motion to grant planning permission to remove the tree - something that was required as the York Park area has heritage protections........... The tree itself does not have such protections.Council tied up over performance criteria Councillor Alan Harris spoke for the original motion at the September 5 meeting, and said although it relied on performance criteria it would result in a better outcome for the city.He said a vote to approve the planning application did not mean the tree would be lopped overnight, but it would give the proponents that option if they could not adjust their designs to retain it. "If we are to have $130 million spent on York Park to improve and upgrade it to a level two AFL and Cricket Australia listed stadium, we must support today the request to remove the elm tree," he said.The proponents said they were investigating planting mature trees in place of the Dutch elm, and reusing the tree's wood at the site.Councillor Andrea Dawkins said she was "erring on the side of the tree", and it was possible for the redevelopment to go ahead with the tree in place. Councillors Lindi McMahon and Andrew Palmer each advised their colleagues to set aside emotions before making their decisions. This vote came down to a tie, which under council rules is a loss.///////////// IN THE MERCURY The Launceston City Council’s inability to decide whether a “significant” elm tree should be removed to make way for the redevelopment of the University of Tasmania Stadium is likely to cost the state government hundreds of thousands of dollars. Spearheaded by the Department of State Growth, the project is being jointly funded by the Tasmanian and Commonwealth governments.It’s designed to ensure that the stadium at York Park remains fit-for-purpose and is able to keep hosting elite sport, such as AFL and cricket.The department is yet to lodge a planning application for the development and is first seeking approval to remove a Dutch elm tree at the site, which it says cannot remain there if the development is to proceed because it will impact the design of key facilities in the centre-western wing of the stadium.Artist's impression of new externals at UTAS Stadium. The Department of State Growth is seeking approval to remove an old elm tree at York Park to make way for the development. Picture: Supplied.The 17m-tall tree is believed to be 70-80 years old and has a spread of 27 metres. It’s estimated to have been planted between 1940 and 1950.Addressing a Launceston City Council meeting on September 5, Infrastructure Tasmania CEO Ben Goodsir said the development represented a “significant investment” in the Northern city but noted that it would be a “difficult build”..“Cost escalations at the moment mean that any delay adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the actual build,” he said. Council officers recommended that the application to remove the tree be approved but councillors were evenly split on the matter and could not form a decision, leaving State Growth little choice but to apply to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a resolution.The Launceston City Council was unable to reach a decision regarding whether or not an old elm tree should be removed to make way for the $130m redevelopment of the University of Tasmania Stadium. Picture: Supplied.The Launceston City Council was unable to reach a decision regarding whether or not an old elm tree should be removed to make way for the $130m redevelopment of the University of Tasmania Stadium. Picture: Supplied.Frank Rosol, a consulting arborist for the council, told the meeting that while he supported the proposal to revamp the stadium, it was “vexing to me” that it required the removal of the “significant and valuable” tree. “We are not sure precisely what species of elm this is. It may well be that the elm is quite rare,” he said. Cr Susie Cai said she had been contacted by “many” members of the public who were concerned about the prospect of the elm’s removal.“I feel like once this tree is gone, it’ll be lost forever. But there are many ways to upgrade the stadium – we just haven’t found the right way yet,” she said.A State Growth spokesman said the department was “considering its planning options” after the council failed to make a determination.“The construction program is being reviewed in light of this,” he said.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Elm tree stands in way of redevelopment
 of Launceston's York Park stadium 
By Ashleigh Barraclough Topic:Local Government Tue 10 Sep Tuesday 10



 Image: Dense tree branches are silhouetted against a blue sky with stadium in the background and "hawks" in yellow branding. 

A report to the council recommended the Dutch elm be removed 
and four other trees be planted nearby. (ABC News: Morgan Timms) .

In short: A Launceston City Council motion to remove an old elm tree to make room for the redevelopment of the city's football and cricket stadium, York Park, has failed. ...................... Some community members and councillors have argued the elm should be protected, while others say the redevelopment of the stadium should take precedence. ...................... What's next? 

The Department of State Growth says it is considering its options following the council decision, and construction timelines will need to be reviewed.
...................... A decades-old elm tree standing in the way of an upgrade to Launceston's York Park stadium has led to an impasse within the local council over its removal. ...................... The architects of the stadium redevelopment said the tree would need to go to build the new centre-west stand, which would provide additional spectator seating, change-room facilities, coaches' boxes, and media and broadcast facilities. ...................... But at Thursday's council meeting, Launceston City councillors were split over the decision, meaning the motion to remove the tree failed. As the developer, the Department of State Growth will need to appeal to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) for a result. ...................... Image Delicate little green leaves sprout at the ends of branches against a blue sky. The Dutch elm tree is estimated to be about 70 to 80 years old. (ABC News: Morgan Timms) ...................... The stadium hosts AFL and cricket matches, and will serve as the home ground for the Tasmania AFL team in 2028, alongside Bellerive Oval in Hobart. ...................... If built, the proposed Macquarie Point stadium will become the side's home ground in the state's south. ...................... A diagram showing an area a football stadium proposed extension will impact upon an old elm tree The area of the proposed expansion overlaps with the area the elm tree occupies. (Supplied: Populous + Philp Lighton Architects) ...................... Tree's arborist 'vexed' The 17-metre-high tree is estimated to be 70 to 80 years old, with an arborist's report confirming it is "in good shape". ...................... Internationally, elm species are considered at risk due to a fungal disease that has devastated populations. The disease has not yet been detected in Australia. ...................... As the consulting arborist for the Launceston City Council, Frank Rosol from Australian Tree Care has cared for the elm for 12 years. ...................... He would like to see an alternative solution found so the elm can remain in place. ...................... A man in an orange Hi-Vis vest stands in front of a tree, smiling. Arborist Frank Rosol has cared for the elm in Invermay for almost half of his career. (Supplied: australiantreecaretas.com) ...................... "I'm a keen football supporter and I actually applaud that the stadium is being upgraded," he told councillors.  "It's vexing to me that that actually means, potentially, the removal of this particular specimen of elm tree." ...................... He said York Park was originally intended as a stadium surrounded by gardens and trees, so the elm played a significant role in the stadium's heritage. ...................... "If you have a chance to view the tree, you will just see how significant and valuable this tree actually is in its place," he said. ...................... Afternoon sunlight hits a tree on a patch of lawn that is surrounded by metallic buildings and fencing. The Dutch elm has not been impacted by the fungal disease decimating overseas specimens. (ABC News: Morgan Timms) ...................... Rosie Mackinnon, co-chair of the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Garden History Society, agreed with Mr Rosol's comments. ...................... "It creates a greening canopy, and I believe the council has a very high priority right now for its greening urban strategy," she said. ...................... "This tree is part of our history." ...................... Aerial view of a stadium. York Park stadium officially opened in 1921 and has taken many forms since. (Austadiums.com) ...................... Developers to face TASCAT after councillors split The application to the council to remove the tree was brought by consultant ERA Planning and Environment, which is representing the Department of State Growth on the redevelopment. ...................... "The application is supported by detailed studies, including heritage, site contamination and an arborist report," Patrick Carroll from ERA said at last week's council meeting. ...................... He said the council's infrastructure and heritage teams had assessed the proposal and were supportive of the tree's removal. ...................... "Any amendments, however, may jeopardise the project's timelines and may have funding implications," he said. ...................... A football stadium from the inside. Developers have raised concerns about budget and timeline blowouts due to the delay. (ABC News: Morgan Timms) ...................... Under the proposal, four mature trees would be planted near the location of the removed elm. ...................... The elm's wood would be reused on-site. ...................... Councillor Alan Harris urged his colleagues to pass the motion so the architects of the redevelopment could proceed with certainty. ...................... "If we're going to have the new stadium, the tree will have to go," he said. ...................... Councillor Alex Britton said while it would be ideal to keep the tree and upgrade the stadium, he could not see that happening. ...................... "I don't want to dismiss the importance of the tree or any tree," he said. ...................... "However, to me, this investment in our cities is more important than this tree." The motion to remove the tree was split down the middle, with five councillors to five, meaning an appeal with TASCAT will need to be lodged to continue. 

A diagram showing a football stadium and proposed extensions. The proposed expansion of York Park stadium includes a new centre-west stand on the site of the elm tree. (Supplied: Populous + Philp Lighton Architects) ...................... A spokesperson for the department said it was considering its options following the council decision. ...................... The Tasmanian and federal governments have each contributed $65 million for the redevelopment of York Park to increase the stadium's capacity by about 2,000 seats, make it more accessible to people with disabilities, and bring its facilities up to standard. ...................... The department has raised concerns about budget and timeline blowouts to the $130 million redevelopment due to the delay. ...................... Construction on the stadium was set to begin next month and finish by early 2027.

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO THINK ABOUT TREES AND AS ONEtrees