PlanningAlerts

14 Comments

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

1. Please reject this application. I'm weary of stating the obvious reasons. We all know what they are.

2. Dear Sir/Madam

   When the state has lost such a huge number of animals and trees in the bushfires, removing large trees in NSW is anachronistic. We are at an ecological tipping point following the bushfires.

   Many bird species have sought refuge in the city while the burnt forests recover.. They have lost their normal nesting sites and food.

   The biodiversity hotspot of the state was the Shoalhaven, which is a huge pregion south of Sydney extending to the far south coast. 80% of the Shoalhaven 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 2019/2020 fires, and from the drought, is not available, but is massive.

   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.

3. This request to remove TEN trees should be denied . What is the reason for the request to destroy so many trees we should be planting more trees not ripping them out.!

4. I agree entirely with the previous comments. Unless there is a very good reason for removing these 10 trees: what is it?

   There seem to be far too many tree removals in Waverley.

5. I agree with all of the previous objections to the removal of these trees.

   The only reason to remove trees now is if they pose a danger.

   Now, in the time of climate change and following our massive recent loss of vegetation due to bushfire and current bushfire losses in WA, we have to protect all trees because they all contribute to removal of the global carbon dioxide which is catapulting us to an unlivable climate.

   Each tree also has habitat value for our wildlife species, hundreds of which are now endangered or of conservation concern.

   Please retain these trees unless they pose a threat.

6. If Council approves this the owners should be obliged to plant 20 new native trees somewhere. But nothing replaces a mature tree. Most birds will not nest in a young tree. Their value is their age. Waverley is losing its wildlife; its birds, insects, and possums due to either property owners chopping down trees or developers building ( and being allowed to build) in all available space right up to the boundary, leaving no greenery or open space.

7. I agree with all the previous comments as per above reasons .Do not approve this DA

8. I have a wonderful view of these beautiful, healthy trees which are full of wildlife, including possums and many varieties of birds, many of whom will become homeless if this DA is approved.

   I cannot understand the reasoning behind why the new owners of this property wish to kill 10 mature, perfectly healthy, beautiful trees; the replacement of which won't happen in my lifetime and the destruction of which will affect many residents in the vicinity, as a result of the loss of privacy and outlook. The blocks on these roads are generally small and without these trees the natural veil of privacy that these trees provide would disappear, leaving residents on both sides of the fences staring at each in what would become a blank outlook.

   It is difficult to fathom why they bought this property if they have an aversion to trees and wildlife, especially when these 10 trees make up a large portion of the greenery on the land between Campbell and Wiley street and create the outlook of all of our houses in the area.

   In the current climate around heightened sensitivity of the environment, I don't think it is conscionable to sanction the removal of these trees which many residents in the vicinity will become aware of.

   Furthermore, I also suspect the destruction of these 10 trees will result in erosion of soil and potential run-off into the adjacent blocks of which we are one of.

   I strongly object to the removal of these trees.

9. Please reject this proposal. Nature should be enjoyed by all - including wildlife who rely on it.

10. Why would these people want to get rid of a Phoenix Palm?...only because they are classified a environmental weed in both VIC and NSW . These objections just prove some people provide no discretion to their objection evaluation ...its simply a one size fits all approach . Im eternally grateful that i do not have such a destructive , dangerous , out of place tree on my property and thoroughly support its removal

11. With the ever increasing expansion in urban areas, dominated by architectural monotony, there are fewer and fewer native species.
    Phoenix Palms also known as Canary Island date palms fruit continuously during most of the year and provide a nutritious diet for many bird and animal species such as the Currawong, Australian Ravens , Flying Foxes and Possums, as well as providing shelter and a nesting sites.
    The destruction of so many trees is having a disastrous effect on our local wildlife, they require green corridors to remain and thrive.
    I find it alarming how many requests there are for removal of trees .
    This application should be denied.

12. I am in full agreement with the points you make Gillian [Smith] about the wilful removal of mature trees.

13. I oppose the removal of these 10 trees from the property. The ones at the back and the side of the property which I have full view of, are mature trees, they are over two stories high and provide a lovely green aesthetic across the adjoining properties of Wiley and Campbell Streets.

    They also provide much needed privacy for houses facing each other in close proximity and as other residents have already noted, they provide a home for many birds and local wildlife.

    From an environmental point of view, to propose the removal of no less than 10 trees (front, back and side of the property) seems heavy handed and doesn't seem like it is targeted to just fixing problems. Surely not all 10 can be problematic and given the maturity of the trees and how long they must have been there for, I'm surprised they have only just become a problem now since the property recently changed hands.

    I would also note that the DA proposal has changed significantly since it was lodged originally around 10 days ago. In the initial application the trees referenced included 6 River Birch trees (4 from the rear, 2 from the front). Based on my layman's understanding of trees, the River Birch is quite desirable. Now the proposal is citing 'Box Elders' and 'Hackberries'. To me it seems there is a lack of clarity around which species of trees are actually on the property. I imagine this is important as different trees have different characteristics.

    In my view an arborist should evaluate the state of the trees and confirm if chopping down 10 trees is actually required to fix the problems stated. If based on an arborist report any removal is required, then there should be a clear plan to plant something more suitable. However, as it will take a lifetime for any trees to grow to the heights of the existing ones, any such removal should only be a last resort as losing these trees would be a tragedy.

14. The garden has become quite over grown, making the home quite dark. The site could benefit from care, rather than tree removal. The advice of a knowledgeable arborist is needed to recommend how to "clean up" damage to badly pruned trees ( by correct remedial pruning) and to tidy up the Phoenix palm including removal of any dead fronds. Palms do not increase in trunk diameter, and are unlikely to cause more ground level damage.
    The front hedge of plumbago is ugly and dark; it may provide some limited habitat for little birds but a native front garden would be better, and would let more light into the home.
    A general tidy up (i.e. a skilled prune) and retention of all healthy trees is important, with informed pruning for better light in the home. Removal of all trees on the site suggests another agenda.

    NOTE: It is difficult to see the back yard from the street. This submission is made on the principle that tree removal (rather than correct pruning) is unwarranted in this era of a heating climate where trees have an increasingly important role in keeping us cool and providing wildlife habitat.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Waverley Council. 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