PlanningAlerts

3 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. I am not sure what kind of trees are on this property, but I note the gum tree out the front, and am concerned that too many trees are being removed from properties without consideration of wider implications.

   What is the true cost to our environment of removing a tree? Each tree and its value to local species of native animals needs to be taken into account. A tree in its lifetime is forage for perhaps thousands of animals, all the nectar feeding birds need our eucalypts. A tree takes many decades to be large enough for animals to use it as a nest/home, such as possums, gliders, birds. And it takes longer still for hollows to form. In terms of bird life coming into the area - the loss of millions of hectares of bushland on areas skirting around Sydney has likely brought more birds into suburban areas, there is greater demand for nesting sites. The needs of migrating, of temporary of refugee species needs to be considered carefully and in full.
   There is the loss of shade and increasing temperatures as we lose canopy. We need to look at the heat island effect, too many trees are being removed, and it takes too long for the replanted ones to take their place as canopy and shade providers. The studies in Penrith and Parramatta show that the proportion of built environment to canopy has a significant impact on temperatures, and the removal of tree canopy could end up pushing temperatures beyond thresholds and lead to greater numbers of heat exhaustion and related illness/mortality.
   The cost of tree removal is much greater than we imagine at first glance, and the true cost of losing our tree canopy is rising temperatures, less visual amenity, less oxygen production, and studies demonstrate a link between trees and green spaces and increased well-being, for a significant number the loss of tree is lowering our well-being and sense of enjoyment and sense of connection to place. The decision to remove a tree should not be made where any other possibility of remediation exists. We need to engineer to protect and save our trees. It takes a lifetime for one to grow this big, we cannot waste that in an instant.

2. There are many dwellings that have to endure overhanging and often overgrown trees from neighbouring properties, that aren't being properly pruned or maintained.
   The damage caused to the structure and sometimes the underground area (due to the root system) can be very costly and also life-threatening. In these instances I fully support the removal of such trees.

3. When I see applications like this I worry about the concequences of removing too many trees. There are many reasons why trees should be kept and only one reason why they should be removed and that is safety. I see the comments above from Tony and Sophia and I believe it is crucial that a decision is made that takes both of their concerns into consideration.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Georges River Council (Hurstville). They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment