Barraba’s plane trees had their heads on the chopping block, and residents in the town turned out at the council meeting to express their displeasure.

The debate over whether or not the trees should be removed has been going on for months.

Council argued the removal and replacement of 28 of the trees was necessary to protect Queen St infrastructure damaged by the trees’ root systems, while opponents maintained it would be akin to environmental vandalism to remove such an important part of the streetscape.

On Tuesday night, the council backed down from the recommendation to proceed with their removal, instead agreeing to “monitor and manage”, although any trees thought to pose an “immediate risk” would be acted on.

The other win tree supporters had though was convincing the council to replace them with another London plane tree, rather that the Japanese elms and Manchurian pear trees recommended in the beginning.

The community loves their plane trees, of course, but it would be hoped there are perhaps different varieties or they would be better maintained to prevent the same issues arising again in another few decades.

That aside though, it’s a classic example of how a bit of compromise on both sides can find a solution largely palatable to all.

Sure, the tree supporters would have liked to see the council go away altogether, but at the same time the council has community assets it needs to protects and has identified some of the trees as the source of the infrastructure problems. 

Communities elect their council representatives to make decisions and it’s inevitable that often not everyone will agree with them.

It should also be recognised there are those in Barraba who agreed with the council’s initial course of action and they were given a hearing on Tuesday night, too.

It’s been democracy working as it should: making your case in a public forum and knowing the powers-that-be are listening.

If only that were the case at higher levels of bureaucracy.