18A Kantilla Dr Athelstone SA 5076

Removing a regulated/significant tree - lodged by neighbour at 16B Kantilla Drive Athelstone

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 month ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: South Australia Planning Portal, reference 21026889)

15 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Susan Moir commented

    How devasting!!!! Why is this tree being removed? Is it sick? People to Athelstone move as they love the area, yet they want to cut down trees which make this area so beautiful to live. We are losing so much tree canopy in the area with all the in fill. When is it going to stop? We need to be protecting our trees unless they are sick. I live near that beautiful tree and see no issue with it.

  2. Louise commented

    The area is becoming a concrete jungle. The tree shouldn’t be removed unless it is sick. Removing for the possible purpose of subdivision is even more disgusting.

  3. Renato C commented

    Hi. I would like to know the species of tree, height, circumference, health and reason to remove this tree. The house on 18a has nearly been built so I'm grasping to understand the need to remove trees on a neighbouring block. Further, aside from the one regulated tree how many others are earmarked for removal? These trees are important corridor for wildlife in the area and are often used by koalas walking along the creek line. This application exemplifies the deleterious consequence of allowing subdivision in an area where the prevailing natural beauty is an asset to existing residents, but is becoming increasingly an inconvenience to others.

  4. Renato C commented

    To clarify my last statement. The house is 16b which is nearly complete.

  5. Amanda commented

    I am opposed to the removal of any tree that is part of a natural waterway. The trees present on the two properties follow the course of a creek and are vital to the creek ecosystem as well as the movement of our local koala population. They are part of the broader natural beauty of our suburb, Athelstone. The natural, almost rural character of Athelstone is the reason many people buy property here, including my family. Significant trees should be protected from development at all costs. Removal of significant trees due to inadequate planning from developers and property owners should not be allowed. The party requesting this removal knowingly and unnecessarily built the dwelling right up against the significant tree. I am unsure how this got planning approval in the first place.

  6. Bailey Underwood commented

    This tree should not be removed as it is an important part of the local ecosystem and will further diminish the tree canopy in the area. It takes decades to grow a tree this large but only one day to remove it. The purpose of housing is not reason enough to remove this house. Build around it. Our environment is always more important than profit.

  7. Eleanor Thomas commented

    Given that the tree has been there for some time, it’s presence should have been considered before any kind of development occurred on the site. It should not be removed because it is inconvenient. If it impedes plans for the site, change the plans. This is a significant tree and I believe it should remain.

  8. Jenny mcpherson commented

    Re the removal of trees generally in the Campbelltown area…
    I think the council prefer to grant building permission to developers rather than consider the environment.
    This is not the only significant tree to go and sadly won’t be the last.
    There was a whole day of tree felling the other week when a number of very large trees were removed at the max amber sports field. Not only removed but then chipped rather than using the timber for a better purpose.

  9. Rebecca Hoskin-Bartlett commented

    Very concerned as a regular visitor to the area. For years that tree has been there, the previous house was located on the property and has been demolished. The new owners of the land and the builders of the house should have considered the tree in the house design rather than build then apply for the tree to be removed. It takes a day to demolish a house, months to build a house, years to grow a tree.

  10. David Harrison commented

    It is quite clear that the tree was in its current location, long before the house was built; consequently, the owner/developer should have been very much aware of the tree's significance. While the application requires Council approval for the tree's removal, the approving authority for the house should have taken the significance of the tree into consideration, and made it a condition of approval that the tree should not be disturbed.
    What I have not been able to see, is the reason why the tree should be removed. I also note that the applicant does not appear to live at that house, but somewhere else in the area.
    This tree is an important part of the local ecosystem, and is vital for the health of local wildlife, waterways, shade, and CO2 absorption.
    If Council approves this application, it says, unfortunately, a lot about how Council views the local environment and sub-climate.

  11. Paul commented

    Let it stand. Just as the residents of the estate want a safe place to live, so too do the inhabitants of the remnant tree and the tree it's self. In a world plagued by uncertainty by the global status of a warming world, is destroying natural landscapes and their constituents really condoned? Removing this tree harms the environment as well as the people and community that care for it. Let it stand proud and give our city something to stand proud for.

  12. Simon Brewer commented

    The tree in question is in a remnant riparian ecosystem and has important local environmental significance as part of a riparian corridor and (arguably) an urban forest. Being a locally indigenous species (likely an SA Blue Gum, or possibly a Red Gum) and likely predating development of the area, it is of extra significance. Although when the development of 16B Kantilla (the applicant) was lodged and assessed, the presence of the tree could not be taken into account as far as planning was concerned, the fact is that the tree was there and known about, yet the choice was apparently made to simply go ahead and not make adjustments to the design to account for that fact, so it seems incredulous that so soon after completion and with no evidence of hazard removal could be required. Although the tree is at a significant angle, it is clear that it has grown that way naturally. Like many similar trees in the area, it is pushed towards the west due to the preponderance of "gully winds" in the location. However, this does not of itself mean the tree is hazardous or likely to collapse. Au contraire, there is considerable evidence in the area that the opposite is true, particularly if there is no disturbance to the root system as in this case. As the tree is in the remnant riparian habitat it also receives considerably more water than surrounds, so natural limb failure is far less likely too. There is evidence that unsatisfactory historical pruning has occurred that may precipitate weak epicormic growth, but that is obvious and can be easily managed. Overall there is no safety issue with this tree and its ecological significance far outweighs the risk to the applicant.

  13. Julie-Ann Bennett commented

    I believe the applicant (16b Kantilla) has not considered the importance of the tree to Athelstone residents including wildlife, when they purchased and developed their neighbouring block with the intention of having it destroyed.The tree is an asset to the property owner and neighbourhood; offering historic, aesthetic, environmental and financial value.

    Referring to the Adelaide Hills Council RESIDENT-PLANNING-Fact-Sheet-Regulated-and-Significant-Trees.pdf

    Where a significant tree demonstrates at least one of the following attributes it should be preserved:
     The tree makes an important contribution to the character or amenity of the local area; and/or
     The tree is indigenous to the local area and its species is listed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 as a rare or endangered native species; and/or
     The tree represents an important habitat for native fauna; and/or
     The tree is a part of a wildlife corridor of a remnant area of native vegetation; and/or
     The tree is important to the maintenance of biodiversity in the local environment; and/or
     The tree forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area;

    The tree should remain.

  14. Marc O'Conaill commented

    As someone who has worked over 20 years to conserve and protect the biodiversity of the Campbelltown area I would like to voice my opposition to the removal of the tree. I have significant experience in biodiversity conservation in this geographic area.

    - there is no evidence the tree is unstable or likely to fall. Indeed many such species take this form due to prevailing winds in the area. A survey of Athelstone SA Blue or SA River Red Gums will show this form.
    - the tree provides character to the area. Athelstone is popular due to its natural amenity.
    - the tree, in its riparian location, represents a corridor and habitat, providing important environmental services to the area.

    I should point out that this tree in its current shape and form was there long before the house was built. The build did not take the tree into account. The planning laws should not be used in these instances.

  15. Vale Pederson commented

    Vale Pederson
    I have lived in Kantilla drive for 53 years. That tree was here when we came, it is used during the drier months by koalas. It stands in a natural water course that connects to larger trees higher up in the original "Hickanbotham Estate ".
    Birds and lizards use it as a corridor and too many trees are being removed and the population of smaller birds is declining due to reduction of habitat.
    I fear it will not be the only vegetation impacted by the building of a residence on that block as their boundary is on the western edge of the water course.
    The subdivision of the block of land in question should never have been allowed in my opinion. That lovely shady creek will now become another contributor to the ever increasing heat map read outs.

  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