11 Rushton Street, Goodwood SA 5034

Remove regulated tree - Eucalyptus Muelleriana (Yellow Stringybark)

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 10 months ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: City of Unley, reference 736/2019/NEW)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Emma Miller commented

    Is there any reason, apart from convenience, that this 'regulated' (not sure what this is but clearly this doesn't have anything to do with being protected) tree needs to be removed?

    If not, then please register my absolute disapproval and, quite frankly, horror at the ongoing slaughter and deforestation that is occurring across the LGA.

  2. Julienne Lenain commented

    There needs to be a valid reason backed up by a certified aborist for removing this tree.

    I agree with the above comment by Emma Miller that the increasing deforestation which is occurring in the City of Unley area is totally unacceptable and must be stopped.

  3. Wendy Bevan commented

    Why is yet another tree being removed?

  4. Malcolm J Ling commented

    Probably yet another waste of keyboard energy....but I just need to ensure we are still all out here trying to protect what are apparently "significant trees"....which is interesting as also apparently...the planning acts are dictating 15% canopy coverage on ALL new developments, together with a goal of total LGA coverage of 31%.

    I'm only an engineer, so I don't possess the mathematical ability to do the numbers on this with regards to (for example) the new multi story, block wide development on Unley Road, where all the magnificent old gum trees (we well as every ounce of green), was flattened to enable 100% coverage of concrete....

  5. Traude Kolb commented

    Trees continue to be removed without consideration for the environment. There needs to be a valid reason, supported by aborists, that the tree requires removal.

    It would be better if Unley council encouraged additional planting within the region, rather than an annual net loss of large established trees, which take years, or even decades to be replaced.

    I do not support this application.

  6. Fran Smith commented

    We know that trees are essential to provide shade and to assist in lowering greenhouse gases, and yet nearly every time a house is sold in Unley, we see the subdivision of the block and the complete removal of existing trees and shrubs to accommodate the building of at least two new houses on the block. We are creating heat islands and then wondering why we need to run air-conditioners day and night. Moreover it is not as though any new parks are being created in Unley to compensate for the loss of private gardens.
    Unley Council, please do your utmost to reverse these trends and start to protect our trees.
    I do not support this application.

  7. Warren Jones commented

    The Protect our Heritage Alliance actively advocates for our built and natural environment. The protection for trees will be further weakened if the Government adopts the proposed changes to the planning system. Writing comments achieves nothing. View the Alliance or FOCUS websites and get involved in raising these issues where it matters.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts