PlanningAlerts

8 Comments

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

1. What a majestic tree. We need more of these, not less, particularly in the City of Marion, where there are so few trees. If this tree is eradicated, how is the City of Marion going to make up for that? It would be interesting to know.

2. I completely agree what a shame. That tree has been there for a longtime. The person probably brought the house with the tree there too. Hope they realise their house will turn into a oven especially in summer since it's facing West. You'll suffer & so too will the wildlife. There should be a rule put in place if a tree is removed then another tree should replace it (even a smaller tree).

3. This house was built 1920 - property owned by the Cox family for over 60 years - well known family in the area. The house has been sold at least twice in last decade or two and tree has been there at least a minimum of 30 years. Not good at tree ageing but would say it has been there for a long time. Food and shelter for wildlife. We have lost too many trees in this area and a replacement - if there was one - would take the same amount of time this tree has been alive, to replicate its affect on/in nature. Owners knew tree was there before they bought it. As one can see around, trees are NOT being replaced in private properties. SAVE THE TREE!

4. It is my firm opinion that the Marion Council should deny the application to remove this tree.

   The apparent purpose of the section in the Development Act that prevents property owners from removing significant and regulated trees without planning permission was specifically designed to protect trees such as this one from destruction, and not just to merely provide and inconvenient formality before allowing property owners to do so anyway.

   Trees such as this one are essential to the character of the area as well as providing a habitat for local wildlife. Conservation of such trees should be treated with a high degree of importance.

   This particular significant/regulated tree’s status predates the most recent purchase of the property by decades. Its significance would have been abundantly obvious to the current owner prior to the purchase. Common-sense would suggest that if the current owner did not want a significant/regulated tree then they should not have purchased the property.

   The Marion Council always gives the impression of having a strong, positive position on environmental issues and have made numerous relevant statements to support this position. This one (of many) statements from the website should be read and thoroughly understood by those considering the removal of this tree – it helps put some perspective on the current situation that I hope will be taken into consideration before a decision is made:

   “Green yards, streets and neighbourhoods are good for us, and our suburban wildlife. We love and need our green spaces, but the concrete keeps coming, the trees keep disappearing and our cities are getting hotter, drier and greyer.”

   Given that statement, if the Council approved the removal of this tree it would be seen as hypocritical by ratepayers and residents of the area. Alternatively, denying the application would be seen as a positive move in an area where residents have grown tired of council-approved destruction of trees, demolition of houses and subdivisions of land.

5. Removing the tree will worsen the urban heat island effect, reducing amenity and increasing use of airconditioning. This will exacerbate the ongoing and escalating climate emergency and be opposed.

6. The urban heat island effect will be worsened with the tree removal and reduce overall amenity. This should be opposed in the setting of the ongoing and escalating climate emergency.

7. Such a hue and cry over one very troublesome tree.
   Perhaps all this energy could focussed on the Marion Council's propensity for approving the demoliton of so many family homes and building of multiple dwellings on the site.
   This is what adds to urban heat, congestion and overuse of amenties.

8. This tree should not be allowed to be removed. As others have commented the new purchasers would have been aware it was there. What will happen is it will not doubt be approved to be removed in contradiction of the Marion Councils views on greenery and then they will approve the site for subdivision which seems the norm for any block in this area at the moment which is already causing issues with streets becoming blocked with cars. The council needs to consider this application very carefully as we are losing too many large trees in the area which act as a heat sink in the hotter weather. No more concrete jungles and reflective glass ghettos should be allowed to be built and no more approvals for 2 storey dwellings which are also out of character in the area.

Have your say on this application

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