PlanningAlerts

9 Comments

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

1. This request as it currently appears must be refused and ammended! The owner has already removed/ destroyed 48 trees, 4 of which where the same species of the same age - irreplaceable - plus more trees than were actually permitted to be destroyed - we watched & noted closely from the initial application, informed council, but our pleas to save those were ignored because the trees were removed at either 6am, after 6pm or on a Sunday . The tree they now want to remove is a 200 year old magestic Morton Bay Fig. Why an attic for storage of 2.1m'above the carport would be required. Above the "carport"???... With several windows??? - not believable - like every other space as part of those 4 dwellings.... To be rented habitable space. Why the deception? Why the removal of the last grand tree from the original 50 trees? PLEASE REFUSE THIS APPLICATION as a carport plus above storage. Planting morayas and small decorative trees that grow to maximum 3m will never replace this last grand tree.
   Of relevant & significant note - the original application was for the 3rd storey of all terraces 3rd levels of 47-53 to be non habitable attic storage- clearly a bedroom is located in each 3rd level space.
   A carport of a standard height is understandable but not more "storage" ie livable space above!. What about FSR? Surely the FSR has already been well exceeded!!!

2. This must have been refused due to the two large trees by the council when the four town houses were developed? It appears that the owners have managed to sneak driveway access in which I’m guessing also was accepted when the developer put in the da application. They clearly want what the other two neighbours have been a garage and bedroom living above but they would have known when purchasing this property’s that they can’t have it due to the trees otherwise the developer would have done all four at the time of renovation. I don’t see what’s changed or why the council would now what to remove this huge old tree that only a couple of years ago was saved and passed all health checks??

   As dim has pointed out this renovation which was well overdue and very well done has come at the cost of many large native trees.

   I don’t think the council should be changing their position on this within a couple of years, many of us locals enjoy this large impressive tree that gives the area privacy, and a natural look. Just go and look at the amazing limbs on this extremely old tree. Save it again as you’ve done before, if the new owners wanted a garage and a six bedroom and knowing it was already refused on purchasing this property well they’ve should have thought about it before buying. Heritage area heritage tree!
   

3. As a long time resident of Bon Accord Ave, I was unhappy to see the removal of so many trees when this row of terraces was redeveloped. The removal of this Martin bay fig was presumably not approved as part of the original DA. It has always been a very healthy specimen and if this has changed there has been interference with its well being. In any event the developer, who as I understand it still owns the 4 terraces, or even a new owner, should not be permitted to remove this tree for the sake of a garage. We are privileged to have this beautiful tree in our neighbour and there is no justifiable reason to remove it. If at any stage the tree becomes unhealthy it should be replaced with a similar specimen. Any application. involving the removal of the tree must be rejected.

4. This application is from a developer not a small struggling family. This money making concern must not be the arbiter of whether we keep our irreplaceable old trees. I honestly find it heart breaking to witness the removal of trees. i hope the Council or who ever approves this appreciates the importance of these trees for the animal kingdom and also for the human one. We survive because of them. this DA should be knocked back, with an eye kept on the trees in case of any undue interference.

5. I'm surprised that an application to remove the beautiful old Moreton Bay fig from this property would even be considered by Council. As I understand it, its preservation was included in the DA approval. Please don't allow the new owners to ride roughshod over the wishes of residents, many of whom, including me, have lived here for a very long time. The Council prides itself on its green credentials and I'd be grateful if they were applied in this instance. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

6. The previous comments seem to have fallen on deaf ears .
   So many residents complaining about the destruction and removal of so many trees.
   It appears that Waverley Council is a toothless tiger when confronted by the greed of developers , it seems that they can navigate their way around any regulations despite the objections of resident ratepayers.

7. The previous comments seem to have fallen on deaf ears .
   So many residents complaining about the destruction and removal of so many trees.
   It appears that Waverley Council is a toothless tiger when confronted by the greed of developers , it seems that they can navigate their way around any regulations despite the objections of resident ratepayers.

8. Very disturbing to think that the removal of this beautiful old tree is even being considered. We have already lost so many trees to accommodate this development. It was to be preserved in the original DA, what could have possibly changed in 2 years? To cut down this old beauty and replace it with a garage would be extraordinarily sad.
   Please reject this application and protect our trees!

9. As everywhere else, money and greed/ house market will end up destroying the very first thing that attracts people to the eastern sub in the first place.. the quality of life, nature, wildlife close to the city...It is contradicting and stupid, and it is everywhere in the world to see as a bad example to not follow, but yes, we are following faster than we can think...
   Every single week there are several applications for tree removals, without any compensation, without replacing those adult trees, the disaster is on its way to happen.

   The council needs to change this policy immediately or irreversible damage will be done in a couple of years from now.

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