It was saved last year, but tree now faces final chop

Maryknoll Convent School alumni are making a last-ditch effort to save a 70-year-old tree on the campus after what the school described as a "painful" decision to fell the tree because drainage work had damaged it.
About half the roots of the 20-metre Norfolk Island pine, which leans to one side but was declared safe last year, were damaged last month by a contractor digging a trench. Work was suspended when the Kowloon Tong school discovered the damage.

The tree cheated death in July last year when the school, which is a declared monument, was forced by public outcry to drop a plan to fell it. The school said it feared the tree was a threat to the safety of pupils and traffic in Waterloo Road. The government said at the time it would draw up a plan to preserve the tree and set aside HK$500,000 for the purpose, but there has been no further action.

Preparations have been made to fell the tree on Saturday, but some alumni have spoken strongly against its removal and plan to stage a protest outside the school on Saturday. One, Winnie Chu, said she was "fed up" with the school's lack of transparency. "I don't know if it is really something about the stability of the tree or something else," she said.

Some observers are asking whether negligence by the school or government led to the damaging of the tree's roots. "Someone has to be responsible for that and we are determined to drag him or her out," former legislator Tanya Chan, who has been following the case of the tree since last year, said. She suspected government approval would have been required for the drainage work because the tree was on the grounds of a declared monument.

University of Hong Kong tree specialist Professor Jim Chi-yung said digging under the tree clearly violated international standards in tree care. While damage had been done, there was no convincing evidence to suggest removal was the only solution, he said. "We can stabilise the tree first before finding other ways to save it," he said.

However, the supervisor of the school's primary section, Helen Yu Lai Ching-ping, said the school stood by its decision to remove the tree.

The school had always wanted to preserve the tree and the decision to remove it had been a "very painful one" to make, she said.

"I graduated from this school 50 years ago and I grew up with the tree, too. I feel as heartbroken as anyone does to see the tree go," she said.

Yu said the government had advance knowledge of the drainage work because it was carried out to meet a Buildings Department order issued in 2004, and half the funding came from the government.

She said discussions involving the school, contractor and Antiquities and Monuments Office took place before the work started, and the work tender clearly stated the contractor had to protect school property. But she could not say whether the school was aware of the work's potential to damage the tree.

Wood from the trunk would be used to build furniture for the school, while the smaller branches would be turned into souvenirs, Yu said.

A new tree would be planted on the campus on "worldwide reunion day" on February 19 to mark the school's 85th anniversary, she said.

The Development Bureau said last night it had no advance notice of the drainage work, and that there was no need for the school to seek permits from the Buildings Department or the Antiquities and Monuments Office for minor renovation work.

It said two independent consultants had been hired to inspect the tree after the damage was done to its roots. They ruled out the options of building a support for the tree or trimming it because such work would take six to eight months - and would still not completely rule out the risk of the tree collapsing.

The bureau said it "understood and concurred with the decision" of the school to remove the tree.

SCMP. Feb 5, 2010.