PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

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

1. Why does the applicant want to remove trees? There is no literature on the council website stating the reason. What type of trees? Indigenous, endemic, exotic etc Are they mature trees? Heritage or landmark trees?
   Trees are a community asset regardless if they resided on private or public property. Trees sustain whole ecosystems. They filter polluted air. They combat climate change. Something people in Epping should be concerned since the suburb has been impacted with over-development; also the burden of a new freight line that has increased wheel squeal and diesel fumes emission by 50%.

2. I totally support Michael and his most pertinent relevant points.
   Why would Council even consider getting rid of a tree-for what reason? I live across the road from "urban development " where individual homes have been knocked down before my own eyes as well as all of the garden trees shrubs grass flowers "massacred"-in one specific swipe. Clearly there had been no planning of garden or nature strip with the State Government or Council- why not.A specific example is at 19 Forest Grove Epping, a mature and healthy lemon scented gum tree bludgeoned slowly to death because a construction site-9-11 and now 15-17 said it got in the way of their power lines for their new 5 story block of units????As well as its environmental beauty it provided our street benefiting the day to day health of our residents walking past it or just standing and appreciating it's incredible beauty and fragrance. Gone-murdered-care of a certain Electricity company being employed by the State Government.
   Who are these(new?) residents who are wanting our green community stripped of its historical and environmental beauty. These trees have taken so many years to grow. When I moved to Epping back in 1991 Hornsby Council had very strict rules about not removing any tree on public space and you had to even get permission to cut down a tress on your own property. Where has that rule gone? I say "NO' to any tree being removed in Epping or surrounding areas such as Eastwood.
   It simply is not good enough for Council to turn our once green and proud Community suburb into a concrete jungle.
   Michael also mentioned the new cargo line train line. Before before it was built there was possibly one cargo train at around 1.00am-I can hear the trains very clearly from every train from my address. Since this new line has been installed and now full functional -very long cargo trains -each running in their length for around three minutes and now run regularly all from that 11.00 pm ALL THROUGH the night. My sleep is non existent as a result. Thus plus "urban development "across the road six days a week for two years now and another two to go at least. Council seriously needs to consider their " Duty of Care" for us residents in Epping and Eastwood and certainly stop allowing threes to be cut together with State Rail "sound proofing" the consistent noise disturbance" for us residents from these long noisy cargo trains running all night long seven nights a week ASAP.

3. It's disheartening to hear that developers seek to remove mature native trees simply because it does not assist with their preferred routing of power lines.

   This raises two more general issues:

   (1) There has been noticeable tendency for developers to "overlook" certain environmental aspects of their projects when submitting their plans. If removal of a tree was not part of the initial Environmental Impact Statement then it should not be allowed as a follow-up application - the developer and architect would know full well from the outset that power was needed for their project, and would have considered how this was to be achieved.

   (2) It's not clear if the example Christine Beasley mentions involves overhead or buried cables, but these new developments should all be required to use only sub-ground cabling. This would go at least a small way to offset the environmental damage being done to our suburb. Besides the aesthetic aspect, underground cables are less prone to storm damage and reduce the hazards for road traffic. Any planning authority concerned with achieving a liveable suburb will recognise this

   It's not difficult to route underground cables around significant assets, such as mature trees.

4. I couldn't agree more with the previous correspondents. I am well and truly 'over' witnessing the destruction of these once beautiful green suburbs all in the name of development. The new developments, in my opinion are destroying the once beautiful ambience of our suburbs. I spent thirty years working in south western Sydney where mature trees were often non existent. The resulting effect was that many of those areas were hot, dry and ugly. Trees provide homes to native wild life, filter the air, provide oxygen and shade, and lower the temperature at ground level. Developments must only be approved around the existing vegetation (trees) not over the top of it. If this means that the structures being built have to be smaller, then so be it. Developers seems to only driven by profit. It's time the local planners and politicians started respecting the environment, the wishes of long term residents and restore some respect for our previously beautiful green suburbs. If they can't find this respect, I suggest they move to south western Sydney and find more sympathetic suburbs.

5. City of Parramatta Council has received 53 tree removal applications this month and 85 last month. The majority of these applications have noted the species of the trees for removal. This application does not identify the types of trees being removed, whether the trees are near the home or if the trees are diseased. How can the Council make a decision on this application without this information? If the Greater Sydney Commission is serious about the Green Grid then at the very least they need to introduce having arborist's reports for the removal of trees.
   For development applications, if the Council receives 10 objections from not less than 10 individual households then the matter needs to go to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for consideration. I would like to request that the Council includes tree removal in this process. Tree removal needs to be regarded as the loss of a public asset and the environmental value of trees should be seriously considered in the decision making process.
   It appears to me that most tree removal applications are approved so are they just an administrative recording process? The process for getting approval for tree removal needs to be toughened up ASAP. When will the Council protect our communities from this massive loss of trees and the negative environmental repercussions which will result?

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Parramatta City 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