16 Slade Street Naremburn NSW 2065.

Removal of 1 x red gum from the right hand side boundary of the property. Boundary of 16 & 18 Slade St.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 2 months ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Willoughby City Council, reference TVPA-2021/220)

11 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Bob Taffel commented

    Another precious tree under threat. Is it absolutely essential that this magnificent tree be removed?

  2. Bronwyn Wilson commented

    This is a beautiful mature tree so why must it be removed ? Who has decided that it’s a nuisance or it’s in the wrong position? Has a branch dropped or has a wall cracked ? If so, this doesn’t justify its removal.
    We need trees such as these in our suburbs. The benefits they provide far outweigh any perceived negatives.
    I object to this DA and request it be refused.

  3. Amanda Smith commented

    Why is this tree being removed ? Trees provide shade in summer and shelter for wildlife . Once the trees are gone what are we left with nothing but concrete. I object to this proposal on the grounds that it is not environmentally friendly to remove trees without just cause .

  4. Karen Borg commented

    It would be good to understand the reason for this tree to be removed. If there is no reason that is substantive, I can't see a reason for it's removal as it provides shade and supports the local fauna. I therefore object to it's removal.

  5. Greg Patel commented

    I support this proposal as it is large appears to have overhanging branches that could break and fall onto both properties, potentially injuring or causing damage. There should be consideration into where trees are planted and their growth managed. We should always balance public enjoyment of nature and people’s enjoyment of their private space.

  6. Katie Caban commented

    Large trees provide many benefits to our community. Reduce pollution, home for fauna and bird life, provide shade and reduce heat. Trees may be inconvenient to us but their benefits outweigh their removal I therefore do not support the removal of this tree.

  7. Chris Brunck commented

    This tree and others like it have taken decades to become what we see today. It takes a few hours with a chainsaw to take this away. Often a replacement is offered but these are usually saplings which take years to grow to a point where they offer meaningful benefits of shade, etc…

    It is easy to think a tree or two doesn’t suit us, but the impact of even a minority of people cutting down ‘inconvenient’ trees can quickly reduce the tree cover in our neighbourhood. Surely we can do more (private) tree planting and improve our tree management to achieve a balanced improvement for us all.

  8. Alyson Galea commented

    This tree must be preserved. It provides habitat and shelter. I hope the council protects it.

  9. Shauna-Marie Wilson commented

    I object to this tree's removal absolutely.

    The original development should never have been approved in its current form as it adversely impacts the health and lifespan of the tree.

    If the original development was proposed for the site today there would likely upon reviewing the Willoughby Development Control Plan (WDCP) there would be no approval determination forthcoming for removal of a tree of similar species and maturity and most likely consent conditions providing for increased measures to protect the tree.

    Its my view that the tree should prevail as it will most likely predate the structures in the site and though the developer of the Strata community at the site may have achieved a lower yield by avoiding encroachment of the paved areas on the tree's root base and trunk, its my view that the owners corporation and its owners should wear it and the tree be allowed to remain in perpetuity or until it dies whichever comes first.

    The proposal to remove the tree does not meet the requirements of C.9 of the Willoughby Development Control Plan (WDCP).

    If the Owners Corporation for the site considers the tree to be inconvenient they should in my view submit a development application to relocate the entry driveway, mailboxes and remove part of the front boundary fence and reduce the extent of paving so that an area of at least 4m² within the tree's trunk is unpaved to provide for increased moisture penetration into the soils surrounding the tree.

    No arborists reports have been provided stating any need to remove the tree. It simply appears that its an inconvenience to the Owners Corporation and its lot owners who frankly, ought to "suck it up" and that had they done proper due diligence before obtaining their lots within the scheme they could have bought elsewhere instead of seeking subsequently to impose environmental destruction upon the rest of the community.

    The local area has endured significant land clearing and more native trees are being removed than replaced and there is a dwindling number of mature native trees within. Trees of the species named in the DA have a very long life and take decades to reach full maturity.

    A significant number of the lots within the site are not occupied by their owners as principal residences and frankly, the heritage and local environmental values are being asked to take a back seat to some well-heeled individuals' property investments so they can ultimately gain a private wealth benefit at the expense of the local heritage and environment.

    I urge the Responsible Authority to refuse this development application and should the applicant challenge the outcome at the Land and Environment Court, I urge the Council to defend the case and seek to have its refusal upheld.

  10. Shauna-Marie Wilson commented

    I object to this tree's removal absolutely.

    The original development should never have been approved in its current form as it adversely impacts the health and lifespan of the tree.

    If the original development was proposed for the site today there would likely upon reviewing the Willoughby Development Control Plan (WDCP) there would be no approval determination forthcoming for removal of a tree of similar species and maturity and most likely consent conditions providing for increased measures to protect the tree.

    Its my view that the tree should prevail as it will most likely predate the structures in the site and though the developer of the the site may have achieved a different outcome by avoiding encroachment of the paved areas on the tree's root base and trunk, its my view that the owners should wear it and the tree be allowed to remain in perpetuity or until it dies whichever comes first.

    The proposal to remove the tree does not meet the requirements of C.9 of the Willoughby Development Control Plan (WDCP).

    If the Owner for the site considers the tree to be inconvenient they should in my view submit a development application to relocate the entry driveway, demolish a portion of the structure which faces the street, relocate mailbox/es and remove part or all of the front boundary fence and reduce the extent of paving so that an area of at least 4m² within the tree's trunk is unpaved to provide for increased moisture penetration into the soils surrounding the tree.

    No arborists reports have been provided stating any need to remove the tree. It simply appears that its an inconvenience to the Owner which frankly, ought to "suck it up" and that had they done proper due diligence before building they could have changed their site plan instead of seeking subsequently to impose environmental destruction upon the rest of the community.

    The local area has endured significant land clearing and more native trees are being removed than replaced and there is a dwindling number of mature native trees within. Trees of the species named in the DA have a very long life and take decades to reach full maturity.

    Frankly, the heritage and local environmental values are being asked to take a back seat to the owner's looking at saving on tree and driveway maintenance costs so they can ultimately gain a benefit at the expense of the local heritage and environment.

    Please note this replaces my other objection submitted early today. Please withdraw my earlier objection and use this submission as my Objection.

    I urge the Responsible Authority to refuse this development application and should the applicant challenge the outcome at the Land and Environment Court, I urge the Council to defend the case and seek to have its refusal upheld.

  11. Ronan Ahern commented

    Magnificent it is having weathered storms for 50(?) plus years this lemon scented gum must not be removed. It has a perfect canopy, is well balanced and is a fine healthy tree specimen for its type. It has added to a sense of place for the surrounding streets for generations.

    I would ask Willoughby Council to work with the applicant who is seeking this trees removal to enact a solution that sees the retention of this significant tree. Any redevelopment of this site needs to include the requirement that this trees removal does not get approved.
    Thank you.

  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