LETTERS 17.9.16

Tree in trouble
I AM writing to express my concern that a healthy tree on council-owned land is to be destroyed to make way for a high-density development.
I have spoken to the developer who says the tree makes it difficult to maximise the development potential of the block, it’s located on council-owned land and is not within the confines of the block.
I am disappointed with this result as there are few large, majestic trees left in our area and with another already removed from within the site it won’t belong before we are left with no advanced trees.
With the council’s commitment to increase urban tree cover to 18 per cent by the 2030 along with its character retention guidelines aiming to maintain mature trees, I struggle to see how a single greenfield development has taken precedence over an existing healthy, mature tree.
As importantly outlined on Stirling council’s website; “Trees bring health, economic and environmental advantages to us all,” and “street trees are important natural assets that make our city cooler”.
Each tree is not only its own ecosystem, but plays its part connecting other ecosystems above and below the ground. By removing it we further break down that fragile link with nature.
On consultation many surrounding home owners, who were not initially aware of the trees’ removal, agree that these trees play an invaluable part in our local wildlife and we all are rewarded by their existence.
I am currently raising a petition for my ward councillors to present at the next ordinary council meeting requesting the tree be retained and the development to be modified to accommodate the tree.
Anthony Ridolfo
Central Avenue, Mount Lawley

Poor taste
IT is in poor taste that Bayswater council continues with a memorial to John D’Orazio at the same time it is investigating possible breeches of laws/codes at a development site owned by his family, which is only metres away from the riverside spot proposed for his memorial.
The Carter wetland is important and there are so many questions unanswered about the neighbouring site.
Who contaminated the site? Who cut trees on council land? Was too much area cleared, outside acceptable pre-works? Were required flora and fauna studies done? Were native animals killed by the bulldozers? Why didn’t council get told the bulldozers were coming in? Why didn’t the developer agree to buffers (as recommended by the environment department)?
Questions of mayor McKenna and CEO Ms Lefante surely have to be asked about the timing.
Jacquie Kelly
Hill St, Bayswater

950lettersSystem rooted
YOUR boxed item “More trees at risk” ( Voice, September 10, 2016) offers a challenge to the City of Bayswater’s use of the QTRA tree risk assessment.
The city should be asked to explain how one of its own reports, paid for by ratepayers, was so lacking in accuracy and detail that fallen tree limbs, large enough to maim or even kill, were dismissed as no more than leaf and bark litter.
I believe it’s time for a full and public inquiry into the City of Bayswater’s use of the QTRA system.
Documents in this writer’s possession clearly indicate that when it comes to a particular ratepayer’s safety, the city had to rely on an independent arborist’s report that this writer paid for.
The city’s own  QTRA report was apparently not up to the task.
Vincent J. McCudden
Almondbury Street, Bayswater

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s