All recent comments on applications from Whitehorse City Council, VIC

to build within 4m of a protected tree may well damage the roots and hence impact on the tree in the future. We need to continue to maintain our tree canopy.

Instead of complete removal of this amazing established Eucalyptus tree which can be very costly, could a considered prune be an option? Any deadwood can be removed and longer branches trimmed. Branches are not known to fall off of healthy, well maintained trees. A similar approach was taken at 1/56 Station Street, Burwood late last year. The properties behind the tree both face west so in summer this tree must provide some much appreciated shade from the harsh sun all through the hot afternoons.

Whitehorse is known for its leafy green streets and the Council and most residents value the important contribution of trees and vegetation in making the municipality a vibrant place to live, work and visit. Unfortunately we are losing our tree canopy at a rapid rate with it currently sitting around 18%, where a healthy tree canopy, that benefits wildlife and more importantly, residents, should sit at around 30%. A of 30% target can be achieved by not only planting more tress but by also protecting and improving the health of existing trees.

I therefore request that the application for the removal of this tree be rejected, and a more considered plan of action be taken, in the hope that we can continue to work towards the 30% tree canopy target.

Hi,
I fully support this development. This will create a positive impact with a healthier and active lifestyle with the community.

While it seems to the the “normal” thing to take every single existing tree off a black or land what doesn’t seem to be normal is the enforcement of 30% “ green space “ which many thinks includes concrete - i just hope what is taken down is replanted to help maintain our leafy green street.

We saw dispaly that it was sold for a new shopping centre development,
then it was removed - came up for sale again- now the signage says -under offer .
What is it going to be there? any clear info please? I live closeby.

kris
0416042516

Not many trees left on this block!

The site is situated in SLO2 which places significance on the area attributed to the quality of the environment, which includes vegetation notable for its height, density, maturity and high proportion of Australian native trees. This in turn contributes to the significance of the area as a valuable bird and wildlife habitat.

The character is that of “large rear setbacks will accommodate substantial vegetation including large canopy trees.” The site is in a wildlife corridor particularly abutting Jeffrey street which has the highest significance level SLO1 yet as the cleared area grows the vegetation receeds.

Council should aim for no less than 5-6 mature canopy trees on site to maintain the basic character of the area.

Further removal of mature trees on this site cannot be supported as the number of canopy trees are below any measure of significance, particularly compared to every adjoining site especially SLO1.

It is not clear what the justification is for removing this tree in such a magnificent area of Blackburn. One has to assume it is not due to the health of the tree otherwise this application would not be going to Council. On that basis, I would like Whitehorse to reject the request for tree removal. It is a privilege to reside in an area with such a diversity of vegetation and a well-established canopy which, according to the Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy, has so many health, and other, benefits. Many other residents of Whitehorse are suffering 'tree-deprivation' as the canopy is being reduced from 24% to less than 18% which results in increased energy costs, health costs and a loss of wildlife. There are long-term effects of removal of mature trees, so I am hoping that Council will give due consideration to this submission.

Instead of complete removal of this amazing established Eucalyptus tree which can be very costly, could a considered prune be an option? Any deadwood can be removed and longer branches trimmed. Branches are not known to fall off of healthy, well maintained trees. The properties behind the tree both face west so in summer this tree must provide some much appreciated shade from the harsh sun all through the hot afternoons.

Whitehorse is known for its leafy green streets and the Council and most residents value the important contribution of trees and vegetation in making the municipality a vibrant place to live, work and visit. Unfortunately we are losing our tree canopy at a rapid rate with it currently sitting around 18%, where a healthy tree canopy, that benefits wildlife and more importantly, residents, should sit at around 30%. A of 30% target can be achieved by not only planting more tress but by also protecting and improving the health of existing trees.

I therefore request that the application for the removal of this tree be rejected, and a more considered plan of action be taken, in the hope that we can continue to work towards the 30% tree canopy target.

I am worried about traffic congestion if the plan is accepted . This property is located on a very busy intersection of Faulkner Rd and Glebe Street. We are already seeing townhouses built on Faulkner Street and Blackburn Road causing havoc due to all cars parked outside … I hope proper traffic analysis is done before approval granted

Kind Regards

Oppose Development of one double storey unit and clearing of block under SLO9

Oppose one new double storey dwelling as need to protect the larger canopy trees and established trees that form an important part of the Gilmour St landscape, neighbourhood character and environmental protection. Proposal to develop on SLO9 is not appropriate for Gilmour St or the Burwood protected vegetation area. Many trees on proposed block are well over forty years old and well established with protection.

Any development would damage the retention of the protected tree canopy and vegetation in the Burwood area.

Under the SLO9 many protected trees, roots and vegetation needs to be 4 meters from dwellings and proposed driveways and paths. Building of one double storey unit including paved side driveways with supporting walls and incorporating services utility pits would damage forever existing protected vegetation.

Any building 4 m to the back and side fences would completely change the Burwood neighbourhood environmental characteristics of Gilmour St area.

Oppose development without appropriate parking and/or many garages which would be required to house cars for the units and visitors. Currently Gilmour St is congested with parked cars on street with very limited parking.

Purchased property with full knowledge of existing old and native shade and bird / insect attracting trees. Already cleared some trees. Tree destruction has to stop in Whithorse.

Could council please assess the tree for pruning rather than removal. We are losing too many trees in the neighbourhood.

I understand that we need to accommodate a higher population in Whitehorse and that increased residential development is necessary. I also understand that, on that basis, it is difficult to maintain current levels of vegetation. Nevertheless it is imperative that existing vegetation, in particular trees, be factored in to any planning decision. Whitehorse Council's Urban Forest Strategy provides an excellent reference on this subject. With the community's needs in mind, many Whitehorse residents are working to improve their own properties, and many are volunteering in their own time planting to increase flora, and consequently fauna, and to increase the tree canopy in the future.
I would request that council take this into consideration when making decisions on this and future development applications.

I would like to make a submission against the removal of a tree at this address. There is an awareness now that we need a 30% plus tree canopy to protect residents of Whitehorse as a result of increasing and potentially extreme heat. Furthermore in areas where there are healthy numbers of trees wind speeds are reduced. We need trees for our wildlife in Whitehorse; the presence of trees reduces costs in repairing bitumen roadways and other infrastructure effected by heat; trees have positive psychological health effects; they reduce pollutants so are a benefit to physical health; they reduce cooling costs for residents; and so much more (reference: Dr Gregory Moore).
I would ask that Whitehorse Council consider the Council's Urban Forest Strategy and reject this submission.

As can be seen elsewhere in and around Will Street, the Whitehorse area is losing many trees. Canopy cover was 18% in 2018, a net loss of 10% over the previous 4 years. As is evident in the Council's Urban Forest Strategy report, this has major implications for the area and its residents. Council is aiming for a canopy cover of 30% by 2050. Many residents are working hard in their own time to plant trees, and Council is working to increase the diminishing canopy and restore vegetation. It continues to decrease on private land. Council's report states "A collective effort across private and public land is needed to convert a decline in canopy cover into a net gain". I would therefore ask that the application for tree removal at this address be denied as it is the established trees that are already part of the canopy and support wildlife that is being lost.

It is not clear what the justification is for removing two trees in such a magnificent area of Blackburn. One has to assume it is not due to the health of the trees otherwise this application would not be going to Council. I would like Whitehorse to reject the request for tree removal. It is a privilege to reside in an area with such a diversity of vegetation and a well-established canopy which, according to the Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy, has so many health, and other, benefits. Many other residents of Whitehorse are suffering 'tree-deprivation' as the canopy is being reduced from 24% to less than 18% which results in increased energy costs, health costs and a loss of wildlife. This is at a time when Council is working to establish 30% canopy. There are long-term effects of removal of mature trees, so I am hoping that Council will give due consideration to this submission.

this area is in an slo 2 zone. the removal of trees will impact the amenity of the area which is very close to Blackburn lake sanctuary. this proposal should be rejected by council. development should not take precedence over the green amenity of the area

this site is very near an slo 6 area. which is characterised by large eucalyptus. any suggestions that these should be removed unless they are dead or dying will diminish the amenity of the area

Of course this makes sense. It's next to Box Hill train station, bus terminal, tram terminal, and future train line.

As for how will parents with small children access it? I spent years commuting with small children to Watts st. Child Care by tram (when I lived in Hawthorn) and then later by train (when I moved to Blackburn). That was before the council increased the rent and the child care provider quit the site (but that's beside the point here).

Central Box Hill doesn't need any more traffic, let alone cars that are stationary!

Introducing expanded social services, medical centre and child care, and then reducing accessibility by reducing car parking is a nonsence. How do they think mothers with small children are going to access these facilities, unless they happen to live next door? Older people with declining mobility, disabled people with physical problems, all need to be considered. Car parking should be expanded, not reduced.

The reduction in car parking should be supported—we need to be reducing the induced demand caused by car parking provisions in highly accessible areas such as Box Hill. The fewer cars, the better.