Residents mourn the loss of a stately

neighbour

It’s just a tree.

But to Perry and Rene Haddock, the fate of a 65-year-old beech tree is also a symbol of what new development in Surrey has become.

The stately tree, located on a former rural acreage on the south side of 57A Avenue at 168 Street, was slated for destruction this week as part of a plan to create 18 residential lots.

“It’s just a beautiful tree to look at,” Perry said prior to the tree’s imminent date with a bulldozer.

More than a year ago, the Haddocks noticed a large real estate sign advertising the proposed subdivision and sprang into action.

“As soon as I saw that sign, I thought, geeze, that tree is at risk,” Perry Haddock said.

They began writing letters and phoning city staff and councillors, seeking to protect the tree.

Meanwhile, the subdivision application eventually gained approval, along with a plan to remove the beech and some other trees on the property.

Last week, after speaking with real estate developer Jug Bilg, they realized they’d lost their battle.

“He said the tree is within the building envelope. It’s got to come down,” Perry recalled, adding, “I was prepared to lie down in front of the bulldozer, but it wouldn’t have done any good. We did everything we could.”

The tree was part of a wooded area that acted as a buffer shielding the Haddock’s neighbourhood from the noise and traffic of Highway 10.

Purple and copper beech trees are slow growing, but the results are worth the wait. They’re generous shade trees that can reach heights of 25 to 35 metres and live up to 200 years – achievements worthy of heritage tree designation, even if Surrey City Hall doesn’t presently agree, Rene said.

“They’re specimen trees,” she said.

Even protection under Surrey’s heritage tree preservation bylaw might not have helped.

City stats show the number of trees cut each year has actually climbed since the bylaw went into effect, with 33,000 protected trees still coming down between 2006 and 2008.

The Haddocks say an arborist signed off on the beech tree on 57A Avenue.

Still, they wonder why it has to go.

“It isn’t as if they didn’t know there was opposition,” Rene said.

They fear Surrey is growing too fast for city staff to keep a close watch on subdivision applications and their potential impact on the character of surrounding neighbourhoods.

They say new residential growth and the whims of developers should be balanced with the rules preserving Surrey’s tree heritage, and they feel as if city hall has let them down.

“This is the city of parks,” Perry said, adding people need to convince the city to make good on its promise to protect Surrey’s trees.

“If we don’t do it, who will? Not the developers.”

Rene agreed.

“The developers – they’re making the decisions,” she said. “This would never happen in Vancouver.”

The Haddocks, who live one block away, say their drive home past the planned subdivision just won’t be the same.

“I love it because it’s beautiful,” Rene said. “It’s an exceptional tree. Beeches are just grand, old trees.”