Home destroyed by a saved tree

[grandmoon]

A TREE that residents wanted removed - but a council arborist wanted heritage listed - has smashed into a Sydney house, narrowly missing the owners who now find themselves homeless.

The 27m-high Norfolk Island pine came down in wild weather at Allambie Heights on the weekend, crashing through the roof near the bedroom of Rock and Kendall Davis-Bogan. The couple are furious Warringah Council was warned the tree was unstable but refused a request by their neighbour on whos property it was growing, to cut it down less than two years ago.

"Through no fault of ours, or our neighbours, this tree has smashed our house and destroyed our lives," Mrs Davis-Bogan told the Manly Daily yesterday.

Such is the damage the house might have to be demolished. When their neighbour wrote to the council in June 2011, asking for permission to remove the tree, he stated it was growing in just 50cm of soil and did not have deep roots.

But the council rejected the request, ruling it should be heritage listed.

A council spokesperson said the inspection was undertaken 18 months ago and "tree conditions can change over time".

ee was unstable but refused a request by their neighbour, on whose property it was

[happyroo_bunji]

I had to laugh at the home owners names Rock and Kendall Davis-Bogan.

[the_hawk*]

Some times its easier for the tree to just die and then remove the dead tree, or deal with it when its still small and no one is interested in it

[j*oono]

Their insurance company should go after the council for compensation.  

We had the opposite problem here a couple of years ago.  A Thornlie man sat in the tree on the verge of his house because the council wanted to remove it for safety reasons.  I often wondered how he would feel if the tree came down and killed someone when it had already been declared unsafe.

[topsidesoul]

Happened her, a tree wnet through a cars windscreen that was deemed safe and killed a young lady.

We all like them, just not on the fence line, next to a house.

My houses concrete is destroyed by a previous neighbours trees root system that is still under the block in the form of suckers.

They pope up anywhere they find water and I would need to call in a digger for the front and back yard to dig it all up to get them.

The other moron neighbour will not cut their tree apart from over their own roof and it gets in the sewer line and blocks it once a year at my expense.

If you want a tree, cut the thing and keep it safe so others do not get effected by your laziness.

The signifcant tree rule is a stupid idea.

[i-need-a-martini]

Their insurance company should go after the council for compensation.  

The poor couple let their insurance lapse. They've lost the house from the sounds of things and much of their damaged contents.:-(

[j*oono]

That's extremely sad, Martini.  If they couldn't afford their insurance then they can hardly afford a lawyer to fight the council.

[cherples]

If you want a tree, cut the thing and keep it safe so others do not get effected by your laziness.

The signifcant tree rule is a stupid idea.

Nothing wrong with saving significant trees. It's when council officers don't know enough to judge trees that problems are caused. Trees have a natural life span and those that shed limbs, such as many eucalypts, have shallow roots or just grow too large should not be left to grow wild in urban areas.

Do you think there is any chance of the property owner's insurance being liable under public liability?

[adingotookmybacon]

if the council forbade them to chop it down they should foot the bill.

[toon_town_nutter]

That's extremely sad, Martini.  If they couldn't afford their insurance then they can hardly afford a lawyer to fight the council.

No win no pay? Could be a high profile case too as an extra incentive.