RAY OF HOPE FOR PRO-FIG CAMPAIGNERS

by

RAY OF HOPE FOR PRO-FIG CAMPAIGNERS.

I heard today that one of the councillors said that this story showed that Save Our Figs had rejected the offer enshrined in the agreement about expert determination – not true. He must not have been listening.

I’m sure it will be finalised in the morning.

Home

Advertisements

One Response to “RAY OF HOPE FOR PRO-FIG CAMPAIGNERS”

  1. Procedural fairness Says:

    If Phil Pearce wants an agreement then it should be an “agreement”. No mention of tree preservation techniques in the offer.The wording of his offer, which focuses on ‘risk’ will be difficult for any arborist to come to a balanced viewpoint. In my opinion it creates bias from the start. it’s going to be difficult enogh with all the fences etc for an arborist to not be biased.
    No mention of NSW civil liability act 2002 as to personal vs council liability ( if i walk under a tree in a storm despite a sign warning against doing this, council is probably not responsible. Same as the red flag on a council beach. However tree risk assessments have not taken the Civil Liability Act into account and incorrectly increased councils risk.
    I would also insist on a tree succession plan (refer to Hyde park management plan) as an intermediate outcome.
    Lastly, Phil Pearce may want his external review of councils handling of the matter, however this assessment should not be for that purpose. (question about reasonableness of decision)
    A dangerous document to sign, but also a dangerous document not to sign.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: