PlanningAlerts

6 Comments

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

1. There must be a very compelling reason to remove yet another significant tree from the area. The trees provide shade and habitats for birds, possums and bats and insects and cool the suburb. This is a terrible decision

2. We support Wendy Bevan in her comments re the further destruction of our local significant and regulated trees. Two in one week - 21 Florence St Fullarton with the removal of River Red Gum, a glorious regulated tree and now, this significant tree, a Lemon Scented Gum, so vital for our dwindling, compromised wildlife and birds.
   The community feels despair as we see the area torn apart by this uncontrolled destruction supported by authorities who do not care nor even listen. We express our concern yet decisions are pushed through in the guise of safety when the underlying reason, in most cases, is development and/or renovations that motivate the majority of applications to destroy our trees.
   Shame on all who continue to allow it to happen.

3. I agree with the comments of a Wendy and Sylvia. I wish the ‘public consultation’ phase of this approval process actually included real consultation instead of this tick a box exercise. Publishing no rationale for the removal of significant trees and ignoring any comments about the application is not consultation. Even so, I will continue to register my extreme distress in the ongoing denuding of our once leafy suburbs in completely rejecting this application, particularly given there is no reason provided for the removal of this tree.

4. I too agree with the comments from Emma,Sylvia, and Wendy. I live in this section of Wayville and the trees are a valuable asset for wildlife, environment and people. What is the reason for this tree to be removed? It does not look diseased. Is it to facilitate a future subdivision or is it simply inconvenient? Please consider this carefully and turn down the application. This seems even more ridiculous on a 40+ degree day - we need more trees not less.

5. The tree is way too big for a small suburban block. Gums are messy & dangerous in their shedding of leaves & branches. This tree would have been planted by an owner, I very much doubt it would be s natural occurrence. I have no issue with it being removed but the Council should ensure that it is replaced with at least 2 small trees in keeping with the scale of the house & surrounding properties. Additionally all Adelaide councils should ensure that streets in suburbs & the city are tree lined to green them as well as islands on main roads like Greenhill Rd etc. This would ensure green coverage, cooling, shade, visual amenity & aesthetics & protection & corridors for animals, birds & insects.

6. I feel I have to add to the above comments. While on the one hand I agree absolutely with the underlying principle of all of the above comments - the standout for me is the latter - Bruen Holman-Bates. He is absolutely on target in my view - in every respect. I absolutely adore most gums, but, they are quite the wrong tree [for the most part] in the suburbs. Even more so now State Govt. has burgled the control of planning and are forcing 'High Density', throughout the community, parklands etc. at a great rate. Between the State Govt. and developers we will be lucky to have any trees at all, let alone a choice. However, for as long as the view is held by those who may influence a rational outcome ie 'any tree is better than no tree', such proposed unsuitable planting & tree replacement [by Councils et. al.] continues.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Unley. 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