I oppose the removal of this tree. Trees in the area have already been severely decreased . Trees are integral for providing shade and homes for local wildlife.
This will be the only time that I am pushing for these trees not to be pruned, but to be poisoned and removed. Camphor Laurels are not a native Australian tree and are highly invasive. They might look like a nice tree, but they negatively impact all the native trees growing nearby by stealing nutrients from other trees. Birds collect the seeds and they will quickly take over. I don't know why Councils are not making it mandatory to remove all camphor laurels from yards in Australia.
There is no supporting documentation for this application. The removal of 5 trees could leave a huge gap for the wildlife currently finding refuge in them. Home owners do not seem to realize that each tree removed has an impact of those living in the neighbour (animal and human). If anything we should be planting more trees to try to compensate for all the trees being removed in Chatswood. It will be a concrete jungle before too long.
No documentation at all has been provided for this extreme request on Council's website for TVPA-2024/236. For this reason this application must be rejected.
This particular location is in the middle of an already very congested area during peak-hour times, often with cars in gridlock from Pacific Highway to past the Beaconsfield/Mowbray intersection and cars crossing traffic from the southern side of Mowbray. How will the additional congestion from childcare pick-ups and drops-offs be addressed? No documents have been provided.
Council arborist should confirm the poor state of each of these trees before granting permission for removal if so many at the one time. It is pleasing to see clear documentation with replacement trees specified.
What are the reasons to remove these trees?
There is absolutely no supporting documentation with regard to this application. Google maps indicates that it could apply to the removal of an old established gum tree. This application should be rejected until supporting documentation is submitted.
This old house is well past its use by date. You would have to be dreaming to think it is worth saving. Looking forward to seeing the bulldozers do their job.
This existing building is a beautiful historic timber cottage which has been maintained, loved and added to in a sympathetic manner. It is part of the Northbridge heritage.
It’s a complying development to demolish & rebuild to the maximum permissible is applauding. No thought has been given to the merit of this building.
$1m demolition/ build price is very low and usually involves cookie cutter project homes.
It’s evident with the new building being a double storey dual occupancy and granny flat are the driving force for making money as a developer. Will this be designed for sustainable in construction to last at least a century not 30 years.
As no document has been provided by the applicant, nor is one available in Councils Development records, nor any indication if which tree, its size or location or justification for removal this application must be refused.
Let’s try not to remove more trees, especially on our major roads where people walk, where we need shade. Unless diseased or exotic or with plans to replace let’s keep mature trees. They are worth more standing.
I oppose the removal of this tree. Trees are becoming increasingly important in combatting climate change . Trees provide shade and habitat for our local wildlife . Please consider that the tree provides so much for our local ecosystem.
5 trees removed from one block of land seems excessive. As a local government area aiming to increase the tree canopy this goes against that. Mature trees need to remain as they are habitat for local wildlife, a food source and a way of reducing the impacts of heat in urban areas. Unless the trees are dangerous or a weed it is best that they remain
Having inspected the development application there appears to be no documentation supplied identifying which trees are requested to be removed.
There appear to be two prominent mature eucalypts on this property which should be protected for reasons of tree canopy, interface with bushland opposite and environmental importance and visual appeal.
Can we please get documentation on what trees are to be removed?
There are is no documentation lodged on the Willoughby Council website that allows us to see
thank you
Jacaranda trees are not weeds and should be retained. I'm very glad the red gum is only being trimmed and not removed but this removal of 14 trees still sounds excessive and unecessary, epsecially in an area that is known for its trees.
The jacaranda is a weed tree. Other trees on the block are most likely good, mature native trees that should be retained. I can understand not wanting palm trees next to the swimming pool, but many of the trees are a distance away from the house and swimming pool, close to Cordia Way and the Reserve and there appears to be no reason to remove them.
According to the site plan, the applicants want to remove 14 trees: 2 paperbarks, 1 wattle, 5 'palm trees', 5 'weed trees' (!!?) and the mature jacaranda near the front fence. This must not be allowed! They should be informed about the value of trees to our environment, especially on private property, including reducing the heat island effect and other impacts of climate change.
the plan identifies 14 tree removals and one trim This is very concerning the follow have been identified.
Paperbark x2
Palm Trees x5
Jacaranda x1
Wattle x1
Red Gum x1 (Trim Only)
Weed Trees x5
This application is excessive. Not only should the greater number of trees be preserved in the interests of maintaining tree canopy. the importance of tree curtilage in proximity to the Reserve should be a priority.
These trees must be preserved and protected.
This property is very close to artarmon reserve, leading down to a flat rock gully. 14 trees seems excessive on a plot of private land. I do object to the removal of trees that provide tree canopy - willoughby is aiming for 40% coverage, in alignment with other council areas. Unless the trees are diseased, or they are exotic then that is justification for removal and there may will be other circumstances too. However on a block so close to the reserve maintaining the canopy is importance for birds and wildlife,.
We live next door to this tree and in fact it’s dangerously positioned over our pathway/steps into our property.
We too are saddened for it to go but we have had quite a few large fallen branches that could’ve injured or killed someone.
The tree must be removed
Can you please clarify what is ‘more than 10%’ and reasons.
I oppose the removal of this tree . The lower north shore has been subjected to extensive tree removal . Trees provide shade and habitat for native wildlife. The removal of this tree will be detrimental to the local wildlife and alter the local environment.