1/40 Campbell Street Waverley NSW 2024

Remove and replace one (1) Hakea from front yard with one (1) native tree. This tree is unsuitable & unsustainable in its location as it is growing on the boundary fence line. It has included bark and the potential to fail.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 18 days ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Waverley Council, reference TPO-258/2020)

7 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Yuri P Y commented

    Hi There,

    There is no documents attached to this application and nothing to support the removal of this native tree. Why are there so many applications to remove trees in Sydney now? specially in this suburbs? That is absolutely crazy the number of applications per week to remove trees, and many of them Adult native trees.
    I object this application.

  2. Matt Kelly commented

    So is your objection to this application in particular or the removal of trees in general? It seems to me that this tree adds nothing to the surrounding streetscape and if the owner wishes to remove it we should not stand in their way. There are bigger fish to fry in this neighbourhood without squabbling over small stuff like this.

  3. Nicolette Boaz commented

    On the record I generally object to the removal of trees. Any tree no matter how small or large is worthy of being cared for by us as a community and Council. We as a species survive because of trees. We breath in what they breath out. Critters survive because they live in them and they provide habitat for insects. Any removal of any tree must be subject to scrutiny and a good reason given for its removal. The older they are the more important they are in the ecosystem.

  4. K Watson commented

    This tree should only be removed if it poses a danger.
    When the state has lost such a huge number of animals and trees in the bushfires, removing large trees in NSW, even if they are exotic, seems anachronistic. We are at an ecological tipping point following the bushfires.
    At the very least it would be best to keep the tree during bird nesting season which ends after February, as many bird species have sought refuge in the city while the burnt forests recover.. They have lost their normal nesting sites and food. 80% of the Shoalhaven, south of Sydney was burnt out including 90% of its national parks.
    The Shoalhaven has lost 72% of its terrestrial animals and the bird loss has not yet been calculated. The percentage loss in other parts of the state from the recent fires, and from the drought, is not available, but is huge.
    Our surviving wildlife is in extremis and we need to include this in consideration of any tree removal.
    And apart from the fauna loss, there is a huge percentage of tree loss, which means there are less trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so the speed of the onset of climate change is increased. If we don't want our planet to turn into a hard brown rock like our sister planet Venus, which was a blue and green planet before it overheated, then we must start being serious in all that we do to slow climate change.
    Any trees, especially mature ones, should be retained now unless they pose a danger.

  5. John S. Batts commented

    Well stated, Nicolette!

  6. John S. Batts commented

    I too have wondered why it is that DA's concerning tree removal are not required to offer a reason or even an arborist's Report citing significant problem(s). Yuri is spot on. The sheer volume of applications, as noted, is very much a concern for the inhabitants of Waverley.

  7. Miss Mel commented

    You DO need to put in an application, and you DO need to provide a reason when you put in an application for tree removal, and you need to PAY to put in an application. Upon receiving an application council sends out a qualified person to inspect the tree and the relevant circumstances; ie a tree may be causing a wall to collapse or may be a noxious species that in on the NSW list of species to be removed/controlled. People are doing the right thing, spending their time and money and involving the council. Asking them to spend an additional $200/$300 for an arborist report is completely unnecessary and may in fact encourage people to remove trees without seeking approval first.

  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