Comments made here were sent to Bayside City Council (Victoria). Add your own comment.
The loss of each and every tree contributes to the erosion of the tree canopy cover in our suburb and increases exposure to urban heat island effect. Loss of habitat for our native wildlife is also a huge factor here. This house was built/purchased with the knowledge and acceptance of the trees and the VPO, I believe Council should stay their commitment to reducing tree loss by upholding the VPO.
Comments of the type of Lee Saunder-Wood are confusing. A resident removing three trees shouldn’t be an issue for a property owner.
The issue is that whenever a developer clears, yes clears, entire sites of every single tree on an entire property is literally never met with objection from Bayside City Council or people such as yourself, but conversely, objection is met to a property owner removing three trees.
More needs to be done and questions asked why developers are held to a different standard by Bayside City Council who can decimate whole sites without issue, yet poor rate payers have to jump through all sorts of hoops, go to great expense whenever they need to remove the odd tree. The answer is pretty obvious and questions asked but hey, let’s jump all over this home owner who is probably doing a basic extension / home improvements compared to developers that are the real criminals who don’t care one bit about our environment to construct another uninspiring concrete multi dwelling building that does nothing for the environment or community.
The hysteria evident in the comment "the loss of each and every tree contributes to the erosion of the tree canopy cover in our suburb and increases exposure to urban heat island effect", is the problem. The statement is factually incorrect. Not all trees are "canopy trees". Further, the suggestion that the removal of most trees contributes to the "urban heat island effect" is simple propaganda and completely irrelevant to the limited nature of the tree removal being discussed in the application. Bayside Council recently released a video of the need for more dual occupancy developments in Bayside. It appropriately highlights the need for increased density living. We must be able to calmly consider the detail of such applications rather than ignore the detail and maintain a "No" position. One example. Despite Bayside Council's website stating "palm trees are not considered trees and do not require a permit for removal", (with which I and I suspect most Bayside residents would agree), I was advised that the palm in my backyard could not be relocated or removed because, "its indigenous". In response to my question, I was advised that the palm is indigenous to QLD and northern NSW. The Bangalow Palm is not native to Victoria and it certainly does not belong in Bayside, but because it's "indigenous" it cannot be relocated or removed.
