Straits Times Forum 10 Oct 09;
OUT of concern for the safety of my family and the residents in my neighbourhood, I engaged an arborist, at my own cost, to check on a roadside tree just outside my house compound.
He found the tree to be structurally weak and recommended felling due to probable tree branch failure. This was communicated to the National Parks Board (NParks) for permission to fell the tree, but the request was rejected on the grounds that the tree was worth conserving.
Tree branches have fallen on several occasions. On April 23, one of the main trunks fell into my compound, damaging my landscaped garden. NParks was notified to fell the tree for the safety of the residents in the neighbourhood and to compensate for the damage to my garden.
NParks' reply was: "In our opinion, we believe that strong gusty winds caused the failure of the co-dominant tree trunk. Based on the foregoing, the incident was totally unforeseeable and beyond the control of NParks. There was no negligence on the part of NParks."
Where is the consideration for the safety of the property and people living around this tree or the disregard for the opinion of an independent professional arborist?
Dr Lawrence Soh
NParks will replace tree of contention
Straits Times Forum 20 Oct 09;
I REFER to the Forum Online letter, "Resident and NParks torn over fate of tree" (Oct 10), by Dr Lawrence Soh.
In May 2006, Dr Soh's arborist recommended that the tree outside his house be removed. NParks inspected the tree and concluded that it could be rejuvenated through careful pruning. The tree responded well to treatment. It flowered in October last year, and was healthy.
In April, strong winds and rain during a Sumatran squall damaged the tree. This being a relatively large specimen for this species, we monitored it to see whether it would recover after the storm. Since it is not recovering well, we have decided to replace it.
Ng Cheow Kheng
Assistant Director,
Streetscape Projects
National Parks Board
