DOMAIN TREES

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 63, Issue 4463, 13 August 1941, Page 5

DOMAIN TREES

STATE INTERVENTION. “AXEMAN, STAY YOUR HAND.’ The question of the cutting down ol “ The Big Tree ” at the corner ot Alexandra and Rewi Streets and of the future of the trees in Victoria Park occupied the attention of the Te Awamutu Domain Board at its meeting on Monday night. VICTORIA PARK TREES. Mr M. H. Williams wrote having, at the request of the Board, made an inspection of the Victoria. Park trees and, having considered the matter in all its phases, reported as follows: — “ The trees on the frontages under review have long since exceeded the requirements of a road-side hedge, and certainly put nearby residences to a great disadvantage. “ In the writer’s opinion the users of the park receive no benefit from these trees, as they are on an easter boundary seldom affected by high winds. “ The bowling greens would be better served by a live fence on the line of the very unsatisfactory rose and rail arrangement as at present. South winds on the croquet greens could be dealt with in a similar way. At present the park has ho pleasing prospect from, the road, and the position must, of course, become worse unless the matter is taken in hand now. “ Bank Street Frontage: The tress on the north side of the big gate have been opened up at the bottom to the height of about 7 feet, and if topped to 15 or 16 feet would hardly be a thing of beauty for many years, as this type of conifer rarely refurnished following such a setback. The trees of the south side of the gate have only fair foliage at the base, with a few gaps. The school right-of-way has younger trees in good condition. “ (A); I think the position could be met by reducing all these trees to lb or 16 feet in height, and they should be shaped to suit this height and be given two years’ probation. If in this period they do not refurnish they should be removed entirely. It may appear at first to be an unnecessary lengthy, and expensive proceeding, but it should be borne in mind that these trees would, by reason of their position, have to be topped before falling the trunk. Secondly, the system as suggested spreads the change over a fairlv lengthy period, which scheme has much to recommend it. “ (B): The complete removal of the trees at one operation would lay bare many specimens in the park defoliated by overcrowding and render the frontages unsightly for a long time. I think this method of such an abrupt change should be. avoided if at all possible. This would be avoided by using Method A. “(C): In conjunction with scheme A: Live hedge should be planted at once on the locations suggested or mutually agreed upon so that if eventually the trees are completely removed after two years no inconvenience will be experienced. This would then allow the frontage to be beautified in keeping with the area now known as the Triangle Reserve, and give the park a landscape effect impossible under present conditions. “ Although not called for in this report, it should be pointed out that a similar problem may have to bo dealt with in connection with the George Street frontage of Albert Park.” EXPERT ADVICE OFFERED. The Under-Secretary for Lands wrote as follows: “ My attention has been drawn to newspaper accounts of discussions by your Board on the question of removing the redwood tree giowing on Section 119, Teasdale Settlement—part of the Te Awamutu Domain. “ Section 119 was added to the domain in 1928 at the special request of the Borough Council. The condition was made by the Government and accepted bv the Council that the Council acting as the Te Awamutu Domain Board would take full responsibility for the care and preservation of the big tree, and that no action should be taken to destroy the tree without the consent of this Department. “ In 1930 the Board asked that steps should be taken to remove the tree. The Department in May of that year reluctantly decided that permission be given for the removal of the tree on the understanding that the Board would have to accept full responsibility in the matter. The Board, however, decided that it did not wish to see the tree removed, and there the matter ended at that time. It appears, therefore, that if the removal of the tree is now again desired, the Board, in accordance with its undertaking given in 1928 to the Government, should ask for permission before taking action. “ It occurs to me that some steps other than the actual felling or removal of the tree might be* possible, and if the Board concurs arrangements could be made for an expert horticulturist from one of the Government Departments to examine the tree and advise what he thinks should ba done about it. Will you please let me have the Board’s views as soon as possible ? “ I understand also from, newspaper accounts that the Board is considering felling a plantation in Victoria Park. Would you please let ‘me have some information about this matter ? I m'ay say that the Hon. Minister of Lands is strongly opposed to the felling of trees on public domains unless under very special circumstances” MATTER DEFERRED The chairman (Mr L G. Armstrong) remarked that it seemed to him that whatever the Board decided on the matter, their decision would still be subject to approval by the Under Secretary for Lands. Mjr V. A. de Coek recalled that a proposal at the previous meeting of the Board to chop down “ The Big Tree ” had been defeated. In the circumstances he moved that the offer of the Under-Secretary to provide expert horticulturist advice be accepted, to apply to both “ The Big Tree ” and the trees in Victoria Park. Mr Les. S. Armstrong seconded the motion, which was carried.