Comments made here were sent to South Australia Planning Portal. Add your own comment.
We strongly object to the removal of the irreplaceable significant trees in these suburbs. These trees give Clapham and surrounding suburbs their character and provide shade and amenity to the residents. They provide ecosystems for local birds and wildlife including koalas. Our tree canopy is reducing faster than anywhere — we must do our best to protect our regulated and significant trees.
Trees take in carbon dioxide & release oxygen upon which all life is dependent. Society seems to be infatuated with climate change but not the retention of trees.
We heartily concur with the comments above. We have lived in the area for over 50 years and the tree canopy has diminished markedly. People purchase for the amenity of Gault Ward and then want neighbours’ mature trees removed, or they purchase a million dollar home and demolish it. The blocks are then completely levelled, leaving no tree or shrub for birds or other wildlife to inhabit. This is in order for a large home to be built which nearly covers the block, leaving no room for one replacement tree, let alone one to replace all of those lost. The tree canopy keeps the local temperature down. Please stop the proposed removal.
We lived adjacent to this property. This significant tree is exactly that. It is massive, and is at the rear of the property. It has provided habitat for wildlife for possibly 100’s of years and is one of the last remaining river red gums in this suburb which has had too many large trees removed. If it has any structural weaknesses, then pruning of the tree should be considered as the maximum interference it incurs. It stands above all other trees in the area and is iconic.
An application to remove it, if approved, will significantly change the asthetics in this street but more importantly, will destroy vital food and habitat which is already in diminishing supply in this area.
I live in Catherine St and have had the pleasure and privilege of living with this tree for over 30 years.
I am flabbergasted that an application by a new owner of this property has been made to remove this magnificent tree which sits on a boundary fence and which has been admired and enjoyed by neighbouring residents, the local community and wildlife in the area.
This River Red gum predates colonisation/white settlement and is one of the few remaining trees of its age, size and significance in Clapham/Lower Mitcham.
It is an integral part of the biodiversity of this area and should be valued for what it brings to the community and the environment.
I grew up on a property that this magnificent tree overhangs. I enjoyed watching the wildlife it brought to the area and played under the shade it provided on my family’s property. As a young person growing up in Clapham, I have watched as significant tree after significant tree has been cut down with council approval as other properties have changed hands over the years. To watch this particular tree meet the same fate would be absolutely heartbreaking. At risk of sounding dramatic, to me, it would be like watching an old friend be senselessly murdered.
Emotional attachment aside, I am now a restoration ecologist and have first hand experience documenting the effects of the loss of mature trees in modified landscapes. I *cannot* overemphasise the importance of retaining mature, hollow-bearing trees such as these in urban areas (as well as in the broader landscape). I can provide dozens of scientific papers that describe the ecological value of trees such as these (and am happy to be contacted to provide these). These hollow-bearing red gums support hundreds of native animals (birds, possums, koalas, geckos, insects), provide much needed shade in an increasingly hot climate, influence groundwater dynamics, absorb CO2, and the list goes on. What people often fail to understand is you aren’t just losing one tree. You’re losing dozens, if not hundreds, of other organisms that depend on that tree, either directly or indirectly, and you’re losing the ecological services that only a centuries-old tree can provide.
The loss of aesthetics and microclimate effects are also significant - as others have said, the large river red gums in Clapham are part of the charm of the area, make it pleasant to live in, and help keep temperatures down. Why should one person’s desire to remove a significant tree come at the expense of everyone else’s enjoyment of the area? Why should one person’s shortsightedness mean that no other child gets to grow up admiring this tree or playing under its shade, no one else gets to look out their window and see a beautiful old red gum, no one else gets to benefit from all the amenity it provides, and everyone else’s property becomes hotter and less pleasant? This alone should be grounds for the council to reject the application to remove it.
Finally, it is highly concerning that the council still considers approving applications to cut down trees such as this one when the science tells us unequivocally that we should be doing the opposite. If this application is approved, it will demonstrate that they are happy to continue being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I grew up adjacent to this property and since youth have always referred to this red gum tree as “the biggest gum tree in Adelaide” (as an adult I concede it might be rivalled by a few in the Adelaide Parklands but it would still be close!).
This magnificent tree towers above all others in the area and its size reflects both its age and hence it’s significance as a habitat for native wildlife such as koalas and kookaburras among many others, as seen and heard from my childhood bedroom on a regular basis particularly as the west setting sun reflects this red gum’s stunning beauty.
I feel incredibly fortunate to have grown up in the shade of this particular landmark red gum - now living in Lightsview which is packed wall-to-wall with development and reflects none of the natural beauty that the foothills has to offer in the City of Mitcham.
Far far too many of these significant eucalyptus trees are being removed for property development and the bearing this human impact has on the ecosystem is evidently inconceivable to those who would apply - or worse, approve - the removal of such an important feature of this community.
Trees such as this one should not be cleared for the sake of 'development'. As metro areas are not covered by the Native Vegetation Act, councils need to be taking more responsibility to protect remnant native vegetation and significant trees.
As many others have pointed out, not only does it provide amenity to the community, it provides irreplaceable habitat for animals, having hollows which take a minimum of 100 years to develop, and provides climate resilience for the future. The removal of remnant River Red Gums from the Adelaide plains is causing an extinction debt crisis for our wildlife.
One tree in itself may not seem important, however each tree removed contributes to the death of an ecosystem by 1000 cuts.
Stop approving the unnecessary removal of these trees. Future generations rely on them.
Bugger off and leave this tree alone.
It saddens me that councils take the easy option when making decisions of this kind. Why can we not encourage owners and builders to plan around original old growth trees such as these and incorporate them as a significant feature of the property
Please consider adjusting your planning when looking at this all too familiar problem
Remnant vegetation such as the above mentioned tree should not be cleared to appease the desire to develop a piece of land. While I understand vegetation in this area is not protected by the Native Vegetation Act, local governments must be more proactive in protecting remnant vegetation of significant value such as this one.
Trees of this age are very hard to come by in metro area and as many others have pointed out, it provides large holistic benefits to the community around it, not only to humans but wildlife as well.
Unfortunately trees do not grow overnight. Thus, while removing this one and replanting another would seem like a sufficient solution, the opportunity borne would be too high for the environment to bear.
Please not approve the removal of this tree to get one landowners rocks off, let everyone reap the benefits provided by this ancient tree thank you
Those who remove our legacies
Aside from the situation that you even have the right to remove such a revered & loved specimen, that you cannot understand how this tree fits in and maintains so much life- just sad. Others see this, and we lament.
I currently live on a property that has a beautiful, big significant tree just like this one. These trees need to be protected. This tree deserves to stay and continue providing for the local animals. Please leave the tree alone. They are special and should be admired.
Such a beautiful tree should not lose its life for the sake of a few dollars to be made by someone with no environmental conscience. Trees also add to the property value of the surrounding houses, would be a home to many native species and provide valuable shade throughout the warmer months.
Leave this tree alone.
The removal of a tree hundreds of years old represents a massive loss not only to the aesthetics of such areas but also to biodiversity values which are maintained by large trees. These trees are critical to maintaining urban ecosystems and provide important shelter, foraging and other habitat for generations of multiple species which are not provided by younger and/or other species common in the urban interface (particularly non-native). Trees preceding the colonisation of Australia have endured huge landscape changes and form important cultural attributes historically and of the communities in which they now reside, which is blatantly evident from the support of local residents in this particular case. Aside from this, large trees contribute significantly to ground stability and combat erosion, which often worsen after their removal. Such large trees also provide significant shading and resulting cooling of the microclimate of the surrounding area, lowering the reliance on energy for cooling during summer months. The removal of this particular tree does not relate to the health of the individual, which has been assessed and maintained in good health by professionals over many years. The removal of this tree will result in the negative impact on the above, counteracting the attractiveness and essence of Clapham itself and present a huge cultural loss to the local community.
As the insightful commenters above have made clear, there are simply no grounds for appropriate removal of such a magnificent tree. As the council and its membership with climate change mitigation and adaptation agency Resilient South will well know, the urban tree canopy in adelaide is already demonstrably lower than what it needs to be to meet the needs of a warming climate for this area in the future. Replanted verges comprised of non-endemic and immature street trees do nothing to replace the ecosystem services of mature old gums like this one. Removing these trees is equivalent to stepping back hundreds of years for both biodiversity, carbon sequestration and amenity - the few hundred dollars that it requires for the application to remove such trees is woefully inadequate to compensate for such a loss to the broader community. I too am a restoration ecologist and have worked for local gov sustainability and with Resilient East. Leave this tree alone.
Expect a public spectacle demonstrating the council’s inadequate and inconsistent messaging between planning and sustainability if this goes ahead.
We cannot afford to be losing trees such as this anymore. Removing mature trees sets habitat in these areas back by hundreds of years. Please think beyond the short term and do not remove this significant tree.
Too many trees are being cut down for dollars. People like this area for the flora and fauna. Don't let more McMansions go up. We need trees to breathe, cool the air in summer , be homes for birds, animals and insects. This is a selfish, greedy act. Not at all in the spirit of the community
There is no way this significant tree can be allowed to be removed. It provides habitat to so many local birds and animals, and vital shade in the summer months, not to mention the countless other benefits that all trees of this age and size provide.
Good to see that many others in the community are opposed to this, hopefully the council will step in and save this centuries old living specimen!
I strongly oppose the removal of this and many remnant trees across the urban area of Adelaide, unless it can be demonstrated that the tree is an unacceptable risk to life, and all measures to reduce risk to an acceptable level have been exhausted. This includes disallowing development within the SRZ nd TPZ of the tree in question. Efforts by some local government bodies to reduce the decline of tree canopy cover are farcical when trees like this one can be removed at the whim of a new property owner. Please investigate applying a land management agreement or some stronger protection to this, and all other remnant mature trees in the urban area.
No. Just no. Trees are not only beautiful but provide vital habitat to a plethora of organisms and micro-organisms. Please say no!
Removing this tree would be destroying an important piece of the environmental and cultural heritage of Adelaide, and I ask that it should remain for the enjoyment of wildlife and the amenity of the local area where it is treasured and valued.
If a native tree of this size, age and beauty is not protected, then what is? This tree not only provides habitat for native birds, invertebrates, and arboreal marsupials, but also to the endangered grey-headed flying fox. It certainly is significant and should be protected.
It's so disappointing that the removal of a remnant tree of this calibre is even considered. Indigenous trees like this provide critical food and habitat for native wildlife, provide cooling and shading for neighbouring properties, reduce the urban heat-island effect, store carbon, improve amenity of the area and increase property values. A tree of this size is a local landmark, and contributes to the unique character of the area. It probably also has some indigenous cultural value. Have the Kaurna traditional owners been consulted at all?
I grew up in Clapham and now make my daily commute through the area to work in Mitcham. The iconic tree in question has always been a beacon above the urban canopy and provides all of the ecosystem services stated by others who have commented here, in addition to providing a valuable link to the natural and indigenous history of the area. As a PhD candidate of horticulture, investigating the effects of climate change on urban tree survival, I am increasingly concerned that Adelaide's native tree canopy is deliberately being reduced due to development and infill. This has been highlighted by recent media attention to the planning code and aerial imagery analysis of Adelaide's canopy.
Removing large trees does not align with the expectations of the local community who reside in, use and/or have grown up in the area and hold deep respect for the natural environment, as well as recognise the dangers of reducing natural assets further and deliberately. We simply cannot afford to lose significant trees, and as we are finding out, this has always been the case. In addition, it is not feasible to choose to slash ecosystem services and attempt to rebuild them in a warming and drying climate. The human and ecosystem health consequences of removing such a significant tree should be enough to reject any application for removal of a significant tree and to ensure such trees are monitored, cared for, and not damaged by incoming residents, or residents in the future.
Respecting and retaining remnant and significant vegetation as a priority needs to be council-lead, which will in turn assist in educating the community regarding the extremely high value of trees. Please do not approve this application.
This tree is of importance to animals in the area, taking it down will ruin the native habitat
Yet more destruction of Australia's natural and cultural heritage. We should be saving every old tree we can, not tearing them down on whims.
Others have pointed out the enormous benefits that trees like this provide to our wildlife, and there is also the consideration of how much urban cooling trees like this provide. There should be no thought of even considering approving this application given all the environmental damage it will do long term to this area and the surrounds. We need to be planting trees, not removing them for housing development. Developers should be working to integrate the environment and contributing to long term sustainability. Please leave this tree alone.
The removal of this significant tree should be prevented for all the reasons already outlined. I addition it should be noted that in a similar situation in a nearby suburb once the tree was removed the property was sold and those responsible for the tree removal moved on!
Strongly object to removal of this magnificent tree which adds to the character of the suburb and has environmental benefits which are impossible to replace
Please don't cut this tree down. It's important in the ecosystem and community
River Red Gums are rare these days in Australia due to deforestation in early settlement. To have such a big and memorable tree in the area cut down for housing development is heart breaking. Living in this area for my childhood years it was iconic to see so many beautiful, native trees. I have even seen koalas many times in the area. We should be protecting these beautiful giants, particularly this one (it even stands out in the satellite image), we should respect our traditional custodians, and we should treasure such beauty for the generations to come.
Please don't cut down this healthy significant tree. We are losing too many. Replacing this tree will take 100s of years.
Dr Talina Vizard
After the owners cutting down two significant trees near us on vacant block 250 belair road for a petrol station, I can tell you we have lost flocks of white birds who used to live in these trees. On the day they cut them down 6 dead possums also. Devastating. We used to get koalas echidnas the lot now nothing.
Don’t cut down the tree.
At least these owners applied in the correct manner, most developers just cut them down and cop the fine, disgraceful.
All the best Catherine street.
Please don't cut down this tree! It is really important for wildlife, clean air, aesthetics, shade, personal connection . . . The list goes on!
Old trees such as this take decades to replace, that's if someone even plants one to replace it.
Save the existing tree!
I strongly object to the removal of this historical river red gum. I am very aware of the economic benefit that will flow to the property owner if it is removed and they subdivide the block for additional housing or units. However, I relate that the economic benefit to one is a cost the local community has to carry in the many ways the gum tree connects to life around it. It bereaves me and many others in our community, how our laws simply define property responsibility to economic value and not to a sustainability account. I point to a number of articles, including international and interstate studies, that relate directly to why the tree should remain. The articles are not written to accommodate legal priority and the destruction of our urban space. I have made no donations to compromise ethical values.
[PDF] treenet.org
[PDF] WATER SENSITIVE URBAN DESIGN: RESEARCH TO APPLICATION, TREENET'S FIRST 20 YEARS OAM David Lawry, H Sapdhare, T Johnson - cdn.treenet.org
[PDF] deakin.edu.au Urban ecology and the future of cities H Meikle, H Elkadi, Working together to achieve liveable cities: Proceedings of the 5th Liveable Cities Conference 2012
dro.deakin.edu.au
[PDF] asu.edu
How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city M Camacho-Cervantes, JE Schondube, A Castillo, Urban Ecosyst 2014
[HTML] plos.org
[HTML] The future of large old trees in urban landscapes DS Le Roux, K Ikin, DB Lindenmayer, AD Manning, PloS one, 2014
[PDF] academia.edu
[PDF] GReening It Is Public Heath Issue O Luvsandavaajav - Essentials of Health and Our Environment
[PDF] academia.edu
Reduced availability of habitat structures in urban landscapes: implications for policy and practice DS Le Roux, K Ikin, DB Lindenmayer… - Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014
[PDF] uow.edu.au
Public health ethics and more-than-human solidarity MJ Rock, C Degeling - Social Science & Medicine, 2015
[PDF] mdpi.com
The 'Bush Capital'—A Review of 100+ Years of Integrative Spatio-Temporal Planning for a City in the Landscape and Nature in the City AJJ Lynch - Land, 2022
Significant trees are significant for a reason! This huge red gum has been there longer than any of us and should be allowed to remain for future generations of humans, not to mention all the animals that depend on trees like that. It's a beautiful tree that's doing its bit to keep our climate healthy and it would be a travesty to see it removed. Do the right thing Mitcham council!
I would also support the retention of this significant tree. This rare and original grey box predates European colonisation. This is an increasingly rare tree that deserves protection. These trees are irreplaceable. Please stop the widespread removal of trees from our suburbs. People that do not wish to live near big trees should consider buying properties without trees.
I am opposed to the removal of this tree .
Many have made articulate and knowledgeable comments about the value of significant street trees.
The removal of this tree would be a quick action with long-term consequences to the delicate eco-system. Its contribution cannot be replicated by planting new trees.
Yet another depressing example of stupid and destructive behaviour towards our irreplaceable natural assets.
Unfortunatly this scorched earth approach is all too common, when properties with historic vegetation go on the market.
We need improved legislation and regulations to prevent developers from this kind of destruction, for short term profit. There are plenty of properties available that don't have Significant and Regulated trees on them, which are more suited to infill developments.
Alternately, if safety is the issue, why buy there in the first place?
Would having a substantial monitary value on Significant and Regulated trees and the properties they inhabit, help prevent them from being razed?
I agree with the previous comments, this tree is significant to wildlife, the community and the character of the area and should be retained.
Given that this ancient, “highly significant” native tree is neither diseased, broken or a danger to the public, I am at a loss to understand why an application to have it cut down has been lodged. Irrespective of where I reside, the protection of our vitally important native flora is of legitimate concern for all South Australians and I respectfully ask that Mitchum Council takes prudent action and rejects the application out of hand. Thank you in advance.
Please don't cut down this tree.
We're losing too many of these great trees and it must be stopped. We have to draw the line somewhere. A healthy significant tree should not be cut down so someone can make a few dollars or build a slightly bigger house. When they bought the property they should know that the tree won't be cut down.
I urge the Planning Department to protect the Catherine St River Red Gum from destruction. The benefits of old growth trees to wildlife, society and the broader environment are well researched and documented. There is absolutely no need to remove the tree as it is not a threat or hazard to the community. This tree is irreplaceable and is indeed a community assett which must be preserved for future generations.
The community does not want trees of irreplaceable cultural, community and ecological importance removed. I am a young parent in Clapham and walk down Catherine Street regularly with my daughter, we listen our for the birds. I advocate for this trees survival and the wildlife, climate and future generations that depend on it and do not have a voice in these development applications. I live in Clapham as it's close to the city yet has a almost hills like lifestyle with the trees, community, views and wildlife. Removing this tree will chip away at what most residents love about Clapham. We absolutely oppose such an idea.
In this day and age and with absolutely everything we know about the impact that our urban environments have on not only our health, urban heat, animal welfare etc. How can anyone justify cutting this tree down?
Councils need to re green not de green!
I agree with everything that has already been said in these comments. There's no need to chop it down or remove it
I object to this elder tree being removed. It is significant and deserves saving for future generations.
These trees are a significant part of the Adelaide plains landscape. They provide important environmental elements and attract native birds. If the owners of this property don’t want the large trees maybe they should consider buying/building elsewhere. Please don’t strip our landscape of its environmental history. Whilst I don’t live on this street I travel and spend time in this area. It’s not all about the buildings.
I can't believe the amount of local people complaining about the removal of a tree yet didn't say A WORD about the 24/7 OTR Fuel Station being built only 432 meters North of this tree, around the corner on Belair Road. Too late now, approved by Council.
Although I strongly disagree with the removal of this beautiful tree, I ask, where were all of you when the OTR and commercial zone change was being approved by Mitcham Council this year?! Now the 4th fuel station on Belair/Unley road.
I agree with the many comments about the importance of retention of our trees however, venting ones spleen on a site such as this will do very little if anything. Residents need to lobby the Councillors for Gault Ward & submit a petition calling for change. This Council is very woke on social matters, climate change, gay pride, indigenous affairs etc. however needs to be reminded that we must retain & grow our tree canopy. A spokesperson addressing Council on behalf of concerned residents is a must.
I object to this significant tree being removed. It’s imperative to save it for future generations.
I also agree with the previous comments.
This is an ancient and significant tree to wildlife and potentially to the first nations people.
It does not pose any hazard to the community and increases the character of the area and should be retained.
It should not be removed for the financial gain of an individual and any attempts to do so, should be severely punished.
We've lost a huge percentage of tree cover in Adelaide in the last decade . We have to stop this development favoring strategy. We're increasing the heat island effect when its going to get a lot hotter. .That's not good for the citisens. This is the kind of short term thinking that Planners must push back against or our Garden city will become a concrete jungle .
Development for the sake of development is how cancer works. Lets have tax incentives for developers who leave trees . Massive fines to cut them down. if we don't there wont be a canopy . just air cons making it hotter..
Fight hard for the trees and parklands or your children will suffer.
