Following more than a year of what at times has been heated debate over the fate of the trees, Inverell Shire Council will commence the staged removal and replacement of five London Plane Trees, that are deemed to be inappropriately planted, as soon as practicable.

The decision was made by Inverell shire councillors at the monthly meeting on Wednesday. 

The agenda presented councillors with three options to consider. 

The first was the staged removal of the trees as per the Town Centre Renewal Plan (TRCP). The second involved more consideration, and the third option was not to proceed and manage the associated issue into the future.

Cr Anthony Michael moved that the first option of staged removal be accepted and it was seconded by Cr Barry Johnston.

Cr Di Baker then asked for clarification of ‘staged development’.

Council general manager Paul Henry said the agenda report mentioned five trees in the CBD that were having a significant impact on infrastructure.

“So they would be the first trees that would be addressed. There’s mention there about two potential optimal planting periods, spring 2015 and autumn 2016,” Mr Henry said.

He said council would look to replacing and replanting trees about those times. 

Council has purchased 200 advanced and super advanced trees, including 32 Chanticleer Pear trees, for those plantings.

Cr Girle said he agreed council had a responsibility to reflect the feelings of the community.

“However, the argument to retain the Plane trees versus the damage to the infrastructure that they’re doing cannot support the retaining of the trees,” he said. Cr Girle said he supported the motion, but he foreshadowed a motion that all the trees removed be replaced, and that the TRCP be amended to remove the proposed centre medium.

Cr Johnston said he believed the TRCP demonstrated council’s responsibility to the whole community. He thought Inverell’s CBD looked good, but that it had to be also kept safe.

“I consider the new proposal has been considered over a long time, with many meetings and many opportunities for people to make submissions, both here and outside this forum,” Cr Johnston said. “I think we are at that time where we should move on and carry on with the proposal that has been developed to this point.”

Cr Girle’s foreshadowed motion was subsequently lost.