King William Road, Wayville, SA

Removal of up to 5 regulated and 6 significant trees and impacts (tree damaging activities) to a further 2 regulated and 2 significant trees

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 4 months ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: City of Unley, reference 345/2020/SCAP49)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Emma Miller commented

    Really????? I cannot believe you even bother to alert people about this carnage. No reason is ever given for this wholesale destruction of our (and the bird's) environment. This is not consultation its just horrible announcement after announcement with no power actually given to the community to change anything.

  2. Kate commented

    The condition of the Bikeway will be greatly improved by resurfacing the bumpy paved track, and installing more lighting.
    Widening the track is not necessary, and therefore the removal or damage to so many significant trees is appalling.

  3. Wendy Bevan commented

    Why is their no explanation of why Wayville is losing even more trees..

  4. Samantha Tipler commented

    There are other ways to improve the bikeway, without removing these trees, such as installing more lighting and improving the surface and maintenance of the track.

  5. Karen Ross commented

    The loss of shade and habitat to “improve” for an already adequately functional bikeway . As a user of the bikeway I am really disappointed by this suggestion

  6. Anne Wharton commented

    Bike SA and Unley BUG (Bicycle Users Group) have been asking for this bikeway to be upgraded for many years. Its quite dangerous - for cyclists and walkers alike, and there have been some bad accidents on it. We believe that the path can be upgraded without losing all these trees and vegetation. We also believe that it needs to be permeable paving. Its open for comment on Your Say Unley (the Consultation has just been extended for another week to 15th June). This is an opportunity for all parties including bike users, walkers and residents to have their say - please respond to the survey and make your views known.
    Anne Wharton, Unley Tree Action Group

  7. Michelle Swift commented

    It is ironic that in improving biking infrastructure that environmental damage will occur by removing so many significant and regulated trees. These trees are designated this for a reason - they are very important to keep. We need to stop viewing the environment as as something that can be simply removed for developments and upgrades. This is not development but destruction. The bike path can be significantly upgraded without removing the trees. They are significant to the area so we need to work around them, not destroy or damage them.

  8. Monika Orovec commented

    This portion of land is being referred to as a ‘bike way’ but it is so much more – it is home to wildlife; and it is how pedestrians of all ages move between Wayville and Goodwood and access tram stop 2 - and the city. Surely then, it is reasonable to expect the needs of all users be fully considered in its redevelopment.
    DPTI’s goal is to increase the capacity of cyclists moving through the area – and the current way it is intended this goal be achieved, is through the removal of trees to accommodate a wider and smoother (and therefore faster) ‘bike way’– hence the removal of 11 regulated and significant trees – and others that do not meet this category and therefore don't require council approval or mention, to be removed.
    As a resident and daily user of this “shared zone”, the proposed plan addresses the needs of cyclists; however does nothing to consider our responsibility to our wildlife or to mitigate the ongoing risks posed to pedestrians by speeding cyclists.
    An alternative approach might consist of: (1) separating cyclists and pedestrians in the section from Musgrave Street to King William Road (there is sufficient land to accommodate this); (2) placing seating and ground cover planting along the pedestrian path; (3) preserving all healthy trees alongside current track (these trees would provide a barrier between the two paths); (4) maintaining the width however smoothing the current track for the use of cyclists; (5) improving the lighting to the entire area (which is lacking) and (6) cutting back and regularly maintaining the plant growth encroaching on the tracks.
    The value of this land is significant – it therefore deserves a more considered and unique solution than what is currently being proposed.

  9. Mary Rumbold commented

    This bike path can be upgraded without removing the trees. The State government & the Unley Council talk the talk but don't walk the walk! The state government's proposal for the greening of Adelaide & the Unley draft tree strategy appear to be such hypocritical stances when in practice both engage in actions which constantly reduce the tree canopy in Adelaide. Planting new trees is no substitute for removing old trees with their multiple bio-diversity values. It is scientifically illiterate to suggest there will be a better outcome.
    The trees can be trimmed, vegetation pruned & a permeable safer surface laid. Why does the community need a bigger & faster bike track? Cyclists have to learn to share the space with pedestrians just as the state government has mandated we pedestrians have to share the footpaths with bicyclists.

  10. Virginia Kennett commented

    DPTI wishes to remove the trees because doing so enables it to 'upgrade' the bike way at the lowest possible price.
    This 'upgrade' for the benefit of commuting cyclists comes at significant cost to local residents with whom there has been no community consultation. We have been given the opportunity to comment on Your Say Unley; this is a cynical subterfuge to make us think we have a voice, when the decisions have already been made by DPTI and council.
    The council will replant with juvenile trees when the significant ones have been reduced to wood chip and sawdust.
    It is within council's remit to reject the application to remove significant and regulated trees......why not do so?

  11. Isabel Fforde commented

    I agree with all the comments that precede mine. I have "Had My Say" with the Unley council survey - although not surprisingly the questions were skewed. Of course people are going to say they want a 'greener' pathway - the survey does not point out that this is apparently achieved through cutting down many mature trees. I use the path frequently as a pedestrian - yes it would be nice to have it wider, but really it would be better if cyclists were better behaved & did not speed up behind you silently. Anyway, I'll live with that and keep the trees - it's lovely walking along there through the tunnel of large trees. Like others, I wonder why on earth we have the classification of 'significant' trees. It is a meaningless term. I know this submission will be met with the response of "oh it's a State Government" issue, the Council is powerless. Well I'm sorry Unley Council - that is not good enough.

  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