Royal Sydney development (Gil Hanse) - tree removal

[Chris Kane]

The members of Royal Sydney voted for a Gil Hanse renovation last year, construction scheduled to start next year. The plans  look absolutely sensational:
https://www.rsgc.com.au/cms/golf-course-plan/

Unfortunately the necessary tree removal has led to public controversy, with an article describing the fracas in today's Sydney Morning Herald. There have been a lot of objections to the development application currently with Woollahra Council:https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-569-trees-in-the-way-of-plans-to-revitalise-royal-sydney-golf-club-20200827-p55pto.html

I have no feel for the utter cesspool that is Sydney and NSW politics, so can't predict what will happen. Are there any examples from around the world in which a club managed to convince the members to remove trees, but ran into objections from the local authorities?

[Mike_Clayton]

The comments section attached to the article are depressing.
Golf doesn't do a great job of selling its environmental benefits, especially suburban golf -  which is what Royal Sydney and Royal Melbourne are - but even if it did most of these people aren't listening.



A sample


"Why do we need golf courses at all. Why can't this land be returned to the public for some badly needed open space, and so that hundreds of times more people can enjoy it than a few 'elites' pointlessly hitting a ball around."


And, "Who has time to play golf? Golf is an anachronism."

[Tom_Doak]

Damn, I thought non-golfing Australians were less anti-golf than Americans.  But Sydney and Melbourne are tough with their tree ordinances!  New South Wales GC has issues with the local council declaring the native areas between holes must be preserved.


To answer the question in the OP, yes, I've had a couple of consulting clients where the local township nixed a lot of the tree removal we had recommended.  Those were years ago, but local tree ordinances are still a thing.  They'll have more chance of overturning the politics if the trees are non-native, or can be shown to suck up a lot of water.

[Thomas Dai]

Highlights the importance of day-to-day long-term vegetation control .... don't let the damn things grow in the first place .... snip the self-seeders away when they're tiny.
I appreciate that some trees get planted, but generally a lot don't and through lack of thought and poor or poorly funded maintenance practices they're just allowed to grow over time.
And these days when labour is costly there are a bunch of ride-on machines that can be driven through scrub and the like and clear it alway. Goats are great for eating away scrub too, and eco-friendly. OK the bigger trees, the ones that usually take tree-huggers and the likes attention, will still be there but one day they'll collapse or catch fire or reach a stage where they can be declared unsafe and can be removed.
atb

[Adam Lawrence]

At Le Touquet in France, where Frank Pont and Patrice Boissonnas have been working for several years, they are being taken to court by local environmentalists for cutting down trees. In sand dune country!

[Brett Morris]

More trees to stay instead of being removed by the looks:


https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/royal-sydney-golf-club-boughs-to-pressure-to-retain-trees-on-the-block-20200920-p55xc3.html

[Andrew Harvie]

I am pretty sure St. George's in Toronto was willing to remove more trees than they did, but ran into issues with Toronto City Bylaws and what-not. Maybe Tom Doak can speak to that, but that's the impression I get around the club

[Pat Burke]

And in Southern CA we have insurance companies canceling homeowners insurance or raising rates substantially if trees are to close to homes or assumed to be fire hazards


Not to mention watering issues


Lot of moving targets environmentally

[Duncan Cheslett]

The point made by a couple of those commenting is pretty compelling...


The club planted the trees - live with them.


How to explain away an historical error of this magnitude is problematic. Wholesale felling of mature trees is not going to win golf any friends. Thinning out the scruffy trees revealing the fine specimens is a much easier sell - to members and the general public.

[Tom_Doak]

I am pretty sure St. George's in Toronto was willing to remove more trees than they did, but ran into issues with Toronto City Bylaws and what-not. Maybe Tom Doak can speak to that, but that's the impression I get around the club

Yes.  This is not unusual for clubs in pricey suburban areas, although some have more clout than others.  At Sebonack we had lots of restrictions on clearing and requirements to re-plant native vegetation on the margins -- at the same time the club next door was cutting down every tree on their property! 


Adding:  one of the weirdest ones we've done was our renovation at North Shore on Long Island.  The course straddles two towns.  One of the towns gave us carte blanche for tree removal; the other town would not let the client cut down a single tree over 6-inch caliper!  So there are about six holes that are way too tight, mostly around the turn, and the rest are fine.