PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

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

1. Can there please be follow up by council to ensure that replacement trees are planted and are maintained over the next ten years please?

   I have seen numerous examples of people having approval to remove a tree on condition that they replace the tree with a sapling or two, then either the replacement tree is not planted or is not helped with watering and is allowed to die and there is no follow up by the council.

   The net effect is that the applicant has removed a tree and the environment and wildlife are further damaged, and we have that much more carbon dioxide heating the planet.

   Removing trees which are decades old will take decades for a sapling to grow enough to replace, meanwhile there is net loss and any species relying on that tree or a corridor of trees will not survive while they wait for the replacement to grow and age.

   This is particularly so for tree that have hollows. 340 species of native vertebrates rely on hollows for shelter and breeding. A hollow large enough for a rainbow lorikeet to use takes 120 years to form in a eucapypt, and a hollow large enough for a brushtail possum or an owl to use takes 240 years to form. So planting a sapling to replace a hollow bearing tree is a nonsense...any trees with hollows must be preserved if at all possible.

   There is a project in the citizen science platform which records trees with hollows and their location. Anyone can join iNaturalist and the project and record any trees they see that have hollows, so that all measures can be taken to preserve and protect hollows. I don't know whether the tree that is to be removed in this application has any hollows, but it would be good for people to start recording any hollows they see so that when there is an application to remove a treee it will be possible for councils to check whether the tree has any hollows so that can be considered in any application.

   There is a free phone app for iNaturalist, which is a project supported by CSIRO and Atlas of Living Australia. The platform records any species of creature, plants, microbes, animals, birds, everything living. Within that platform are projects on particular topics that can be joined to add the observations. The iNaturalist Tree hollows and significant habitat trees project is here: https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/projects/tree-hollows-and-significant-habitat-trees-in-australia.

   The project can be filtered to show the hollow bearing trees in particular areas, and their location is taken from the photo digital data so that they can be easily identified. The project is about a year old now and has thousands of trees recorded, but only one so far in the Waverley area, so I hope that people will start looking for hollow bearing trees and recording them in Waverley soon.

   There are people recording species in Waverley in iNaturalist, and nearly 4,000 observations have been added for Waverley and can be seen here: https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations?place_id=18694

   Thank you

2. Plus 1 to K Watson. In fact, let's do it properly .... Plus 10 to K Watson.

   It's time Council put its money where its mouth is.

   This looks so good on paper ..... https://cityhub.com.au/local-council-in-sydney-will-be-covered-in-tree-canopy-and-vegetation-cover/

   .... but when I see the number of established trees removed for the same old reasons, reasons that Council in its approval sign-off has just copied-and-pasted from all the rest, it makes what was a very good idea, with good intentions, look a lot more like lip service to me.

   In Paula Masselos, I think we have a very good mayor, a great mayor, certainly the best I've seen in my 35 years living in Waverley.

   So, Paula, after the release of W. C.'s Greening and Cooling Strategy referred to in the link above, from the casual observer's pov, nothing has changed. It seems that the same number of established (read: a 50 to 100 year investment, not to be recovered in well over a generation or two) trees are being destroyed on Council’s watch.

   And as K Watson said, on the rare occasion a replacement tree is actually planted as required by Council, it's left to die unwatered while Council sleeps, uninterested.

   The only thing that's changed is that the excuses for killing healthy established trees have become more imaginative and impressive and designed for people to think ... "Well, there was a good reason for that, so that's OK."

   It's not OK.

   When I read between the lines in these tree removal applications and approvals, I see far too high a percentage of the same old realities ... 'To gain a development advantage' or 'Because the owner decided the tree wasn't in keeping with their latest fashion needs'. It seems that whoever is signing (many of) these things off just wants an easy life and to stop with the fussing and time-wasting so they can get out to lunch.

   Paula, please wave Council's own Greening and Cooling Strategy in front of it again, and I'd suggest the need for the setting-up of a vigilance/oversight team, **with powers**, to make Council actually do what it said it will do instead of making the right noises and then continuing on business-as-usual destroying our heritage, never to be replaced.

   Thanks,

   Jeremy Bird

3. I agree with both K Watson and J. Bird
   J. Ebner

4. Thanks to both K Watson and J Bird for their considered and educational commentary. I agree with their observations and wish to god someone would take their advice and suggestions seriously.

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