All recent comments on applications from Maroondah City Council, VIC

I am concerned that these trees may be canopy species and, if so, I object to their removal.

I submit that the loss of so many trees in this area, the current situation in Wombolano Park where so many many trees are dying ..(maybe because of the loss of water due to recent property developments) is unacceptable.
I have lived in this area for over 50 years and loved it for its green environment and native fauna.
I object to removal of 2 trees.

Hi, just wanted to know when 52 Mullum Mullum Rd Ringwood is going to be demolished

No information is available from MCC advertised planning applications, so it is unclear exactly how many trees are to be removed and the location of these on the Tintern School site.

It is to be hoped that a minimum of two for one replacement trees are required by Council, since the farm area lends itself to providing space for extra tree cover.

To maintain MCC's canopy at above 30% which is required for temperature abatement and for habitat, opportunities like this one is an opportunity to plant new trees. CCS is in talks with 3 other schools in Maroondah with a view to creating tiny forests, maybe this concept could also be applied to this application.

Re the Reference Number M/2020/1067/A in regard to 13 Churchill Street Ringwood.
Why does the council feel that this is the correct location for more Social Housing ?
Churchill Street is in the center of a neighborhood square/precinct surrounded by Bond Street, Ringwood Street, New Street and Nelson Street.
This is an area that over the past 10 to 15 years has been converted from a rundown area to an area consisting of beautifully manicured apartment buildings with some singular apartments valued up to and over $2m. My estimation is that a conservative number of 45 old weatherboard properties have been pulled down and replaced by (conservatively) over 600 apartments making this particular precinct a huge cash cow for the local council with an estimated increase in annual rates from approx $45k from the removal of the aforementioned old properties to over $600k PA obtained from the rates from the new apartments, not to mention commercial rates that they obtain from such places as Costco that also are in this precinct.
Currently in this precinct there are commission homes that have made what could be a safe and idyllic area into no-go zones and housed by people placed there by local councils that have no respect for the area and continually vandalise the area by spraying everything with graffiti , dumping huge piles of rubbish on the nature strips and in Mullum Mullum Creek, littering the area with stolen supermarket shopping trolleys, breaking into homes, setting fire to commission homes running drug dens, yelling and screaming till all hours, allowing feral dogs to roam the streets and bark all night and turning the outside of "their" homes into scrap metal yards and side streets into race tracks what does the local council do about it........ABSALUTELY NOTHING...!! so why add another 70 Social housing apartments into an area that the council are quite happy to reap the benefits of an annual increase in rates by 1233% yet do nothing to manage/monitor or "police" the area with that huge increase of funds. It's a blatant case of dumping the "residents' in their 'homes' (that my taxes pay for) then turning a blind eye to what goes on.
The only 'sign' that I have seen in this area of any council monitoring are two solar powered security camera towers watching two units in Montgomery St, this in itself gives you an indication as to how bad the area is.
My days are filled with submitting photographs of the cranage in the area via the "Snap and Send App" because if I didn't you in the local council would do nothing. It's clear that you have no pride in Ringwood, just look at the footbridge over Maroondah Highway next to the Coach Pub its covered in graffiti and I'm sure members of the local council would pass under that each and every day YET NOTHING IS DONE ABOUT IT, surely you can't all still be working from home..!?!?.
Placing the proposed 70 Apartments in the area that already has commission/social housing problems is downright stupidity, why not develop areas along the run-down Ringwood section of the Maroondah Highway instead of those areas being desolate and allow private developers to develop more private residential apartments on Churchill St and any other street(s) in that area/precinct or is it a case of the local councilors saying "it doesn't matter where social and commission homes go as long as it's not in my back yard" ........!!

Please ensure tree protection zone to keep the tree at the front of the property safe from soil impaction during the building phase, it is mature and adds neighbourhood character as a canopy tree.

This area of South Croydon is heavily vegetated and carries the habitat load for many species, every tree removed is a great loss. It is to be hoped that the two trees potentially to be removed are to be replaced immediately with suitable species that will attain good height and are suited to the fauna of the area. Nick if you can let me know via email, we would appreciate knowing the reason.

There is a very thorough assessment of vegetation on this site done by Galbraith, it is noted that trees 33 and 34 should be able to be successfully retained during the building, we hope this involves TPZ areas to prevent root compaction as vehicles enter and exit the site.
There is a suggestion that two limbs of tree 34 which is a Eucalyptus Citriadora should have two fairly large limbs lopped. While this is permitted within Pruning rules, it is not good for the balance of the canopy and needs to be substantiated with very good reasons.
If such work is to be undertaken Croydon Conservation Society suggests the addition of two nesting boxes be placed appropriately within other forked places within the tree. Habitat will definitely be lost with the removal of 40 other trees on site, If this request can be accommodated, CCS would not object to this proposal even though there is a huge loss of overall vegetation from this site.

There are only two trees left on this site. They're at the front and pose no obstacle the build that is apparently already approved. I object to this unnecessary loss of trees.

It is impossible to make any judgement regarding this request because there is no direction given as to which or where the trees are involved. Please detail those which are involved.

From the Google maps photo there are two significant sized trees on this block. One of the left boundary may be a Pine, if so we have no objection. However there is also a very tall healthy canopy tree at the rear which appears to be a eucalypt of some species. Evident in street view above the dwelling.
Croydon Conservation Society objects to the removal of this tree, as it is a habitat tree, also providing climate moderation in terms of being a wind break, providing shade from heat, and preventing frost to plants that are understory.
Our green and leafy Maroondah has an obligation to continue to keep mature trees. Replacement with mid sized trees leaves about a 30 year gap in the canopy of the area In fact, given no one monitors replacement trees, they may be removed after new residents move in, this is not uncommon.

So the block has already been almost completely denuded and now they want to get rid of the last few trees. Roll on the deforestation of Croydon. We've lost 30% of our tree cover in the last fifteen years. I know this isn't the fight the Council will chose to fight. On it's own it doesn't seem like the end of the world. But the pattern is established now and the trees are falling everywhere, the birds are restricted, the yellow tailed black cockatoos no longer visit me and the Noisy miners are driving out the small birds.

I lament.

Advertising can be confronting, if oversize or inappropriate for the location.
It can destroy the amenity of an area. Super large hoardings as used along American highways, and like the ones already in Maroondah on Dorest Rd and Canterbury Rd are the antithesis of allowing Maroondah to be leafy and green in commercial areas.
CCS would object to anything that is likely to be "oversize". We cannot check on line as there is nothing to show with this application according to the message when a formatted number search is performed.
Could the relevant planning officer please make contact with CCS to inform us of the size and type of advertising sign please.

Imagine not even warning your new tenants that you were planning to try and get this planning application approved! Imagine leading them to beleive they could settle down here, and then out of nowhere they have to come home to see this ------ not even the real estate managers were made aware of this (which might i add is a breach of lease agreement on the property owners behalf). This was horrifying to learn.

There aren't any other dwellings of this nature on the street and it is a quiet residential street.... surely this is such a slap in the face to all us residents who have readily come to discuss this in an upfront, and very upset manner. We agree it is "ridiculous and tone-deaf" - especially considering that many of our neighbours have just had newborn children and are nursing elderly parents in the street (fearing any increase in the busyness of the street, and not to mention construction disruption and noise on such a narrow small street).

While this area is within the Ringwood East Activity area, and as such likely ripe for re- development, it should not come at the cost of mature tree removal. Croydon Conservation Society is opposed to the removal of mature canopy trees, based on Climate Change effects of loss of vegetation, particularly where new roof tops will be exposed to full sun making living both hotter and colder with out the vegetation canopy. This generally results in the use of artificial temperature control as in heating and cooling both of which use energy. Our opinion is that this is not the way forward to sustainability.
CCS therefore objects in principle to the request for tree removal at this site.

It appears to me that there are only 3 trees of any size on this land. I therefore object.

To remove 6 trees would denude the site of far too much biodiversity. The Maroondah Council has set a reasonable standard of tree and shrub removal and this surely is excessive.

There is some tree vegetation on the rear boundary of this site, without having more details it is difficult to tell if it is able to be retained.
If worthy of retention CCS believes older trees are worth keeping as we continually lose more to development across the municipality. Young trees take too long to mature leaving the site to become a heat sink, with extensive roof tops across this land parcel.

It is within character of area for increased density and great to see that two trees on the rear boundary are to be protected. A eucalypt and a deciduous tree. It is concerning however that the deciduous tree will have significant leaf drop in Autumn, and a new owner may subsequently request inappropriate pruning to alleviate this problem. It would be good to find that within the plan, something like a good quality gutter guard is used at the rear of unit tree, for the continued health of this tree.
Also good to see that two mature trees at the front of the property are to be both retained and protected, throughout the building process.
I am curious to know why a Liquid amber is said to be of "good structure" and "mature" but is considered damaging. Can this be explained please? What is it likely to damage?

It is to be hoped that the side boundary vegetation will not all have to be sacrificed to get access to the rear to build. It is difficult to tell from the satellite image, but there appears to be substantial fence line greenery.
Hopefully the new landscaping plans will ensure there is no net loss of vegetation on the site.

While Plan Melbourne is encouraging densification near facilities like shopping precinct, in this case Burnt Bridge, this application will almost entirely cover the site in hard standing impervious material. Who actually knows the tree count on this site currently, but from satellite imagery it appears to have substantial greenery.
Croydon Conservation Society is alarmed at the continued loss of our habitat and trees for wildlife and human well being. What is Council planning to do to ensure this application does not reduce our tree cover in that local precinct, which is where the current wildlife is accustomed to find roosting sites shelter from storms and potentially habitat.?
It seems to be an overreach to situate 8 double storeys and 2 single level residences on what has been a single house site.

Another 4 trees bite the dust! How about leaving 2 & removing 2 ! Or better still removing just 1 !

Councils environmental team in planning need to ensure trees are planted to become fully grown habitat trees into the future. Every new development must achieve good environmental outcomes along with energy efficiency, and good passive solar design, must also contribute to the restoration of canopy trees across Maroondah.
CCS will not object if these conditions are enforced as part of the landscaping plan.

Croydon Conservation Society is ethically opposed to tree removal from private land, since we are falling below the threshold of greater than 30 % tree cover for our Municipality to be livable, with trees providing shelter, from excessive heat, shelter through wind abatement, habitat for our dwindling local species and in terms of human health trees improve our wellbeing and overall health through biophilia.
12 trees off one block is overkill, and based on that CCS objects to this application.