Unit 1-2 216 Daws Rd Daw Park SA 5041

Why can't significant trees be incorporated into the design of change to the site? They are there for decades and provide invaluable positive resource to the local environment. Many scientific articles confirming this. Understanding preferences for tree attributes: the relative effects of socio-economic and local environmental factors, ML Avolio, DE Pataki, S Pincetl, TW Gillespie… - Urban …, 2015 - Springe
Historic trees add value to the area, removing them removes that. I have been part of discussion on this in a local community group.

The removal of significant trees should not be permitted if we are serious about addressing the ongoing net losses of canopy cover and urban biodiversity resulting from ongoing development. The very purpose of designating trees as “significant” is undermined when their protection is disregarded in the face of construction or development applications seeking their removal.

Significant trees provide essential environmental, social, and ecological functions. They contribute shade, soil stability, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and neighbourhood amenity. The term “tree damaging activity” —often referring to root intrusion or overhanging branches—should not serve as a convenient pretext for removal. Instead, development proposals should be required to adopt a “redesign, remodel, retain” approach to ensure that these trees are integrated into urban planning outcomes.

Design and planning regulations must explicitly mandate the retention and incorporation of significant (and other) trees within new developments. As outlined in the report on Urban Tree Protection in Australia (https://plan.sa.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1087886/Urban_tree_protection_in_Australia.pdf), South Australia strengthened its tree protection laws following this review and a subsequent parliamentary inquiry. Nevertheless, approvals for tree removals continue to be granted, which undermines the intent of these legislative reforms.

The notion that the removal of mature trees can be adequately offset by planting saplings is misguided and dismissive of the ecological and temporal value of established trees. Mature specimens, which have taken decades or even centuries to grow, cannot be replaced within a human lifetime, nor can their environmental contributions be replicated in the short term.

Within the City of Mitcham, numerous significant trees have already been lost due to the approval of planning applications, despite council recommendations advocating for their retention. It is hoped that, in this instance, council will uphold the principles of environmental stewardship and prevent the unnecessary removal of the trees in question.

Removal of significant trees shouldn’t be approved if we are to try to halt the increasingly barren landscape that urban construction is creating. What is the point of listing them as significant if their significance is negated when development or construction applications seek their removal? We know that they provide shade, soil stability, carbon sequestration, habitat for wildlife, and amenity to a neighbourhood.
Design and planning rules need to mandate that they incorporate significant (and other) trees. SA tree laws were toughened after a 2022 report conducted by the University of Adelaide, and a subsequent parliamentary enquiry. However, removal applications continue to be approved. We shouldn’t even be having this debate. And the notion often put forward that trees will be replaced with saplings, is an insult to those who understand that you cannot, and will not replace what has been lost, and which has taken decades, if not centuries to grow, and provide so much benefit to the environment. The Mitcham Council area has lost many significant trees due to planning applications being approved, despite council often recommending that they be retained. Hopefully, council will be able to prevent removal of the trees in question.

The arborist’s tree retention rating of “moderate” for these Red Ironbarks is superfluous given the fact that they are already significant trees. The significance rating should be more than enough to warrant protection! With the increase in extreme climate conditions and continual loss of biodiversity we should be doing everything possible to protect and retain any and all native trees… and those deemed significant should be protected without question as their importance has already been justified

Dear City of Mitcham,
I urge you to require the construction planners to propose alternative designs that do not involve removing significant trees. As lead author on the Urban Tree Protection in Australia report, my hope following the detailed investigation and considered recommendations was that the report would be used as a tool to help Councils defend trees. The upgrades to the facilities are no doubt important, but I have faith that our engineers and architects have the ability to redesign and propose new solutions - I urge you to require that they do this. If they are not asked, we set an example that the established trees are secondary to construction, negating the environmental and health benefits they provide, and the time and difficulty in bringing those back. With a changing climate, there is no guarantee that future trees will reach the size and maturity of the existing trees. Furthermore, the established ecosystem includes all the significant trees in the zone, and the larger trees planned to be retained will be impacted by removal of nearby significant trees due to changes in soil dynamics and climate control - in particular, heat distribution, which will be further impacted by the changes in construction in the immediate area. We know that trees have more value than a predicted life expectancy can indicate, to the environment and to human health.
For the health and wellbeing of Repat clients and their families, and health workers at the sites, who are all benefitted by the health of the existing ecosystem, please use the recommendations in the Urban Tree Protection in Australia report and the tree laws that were established because of this to require tree inclusive design alternatives from the professionals responsible - they can do it! I hope Mitcham Council can start to make tree inclusive design the norm.
Kindest regards,
Rikki