Letters: Declining tree canopy, e-bikes, flood maps, EV charging and other shire issues

Regarding your report (Dec 20) on Land and Environment Department figures showing the tree canopy in the shire shrinking nine per cent in three years, my observation is that the permanent sound of the shire is now chainsaws. Every week, large established trees are coming down in my area and it seems that developers (and residents) have a free hand to do this. The development process is now set to favour developers, It used to be that neighbours could present their concerns / objections at council meetings and speak with the councillors; now it is faceless interaction with one person responsible for approving DAs.

Trees that are marked for retention are either taken down at the time of building or a year or two later. Last month, a vacant block of land in my street was approved for a car park for the adjacent school. When the site was cleared, a number of large trees were destroyed, including four that were marked on the DA to be retained.

I reported this to council, and am still waiting to receive a reply. I find this a very sad situation, but glad to see that the is willing to highlight this, with articles like yours. Keep up the good work.

The council says its studies show a decline of less than one per cent. Sutherland Council needs to stop fighting over the figures and accept the reality that tree canopy has declined on both private and public land in the Shire. Council has allowed too many mature trees to be removed for development, has removed too many street trees itself, and has not replanted enough to compensate.

Even if replanting is done, it takes a certain time for new 1. 5 m high trees to actually provide the canopy, shade and habitat of all those mature trees lost. Sutherland Council needs a renewed focus to protect trees, particularly on the public land it is responsible for, such as street trees.

On daily walks, I am sadly reminded by all the bare patches representing previous failed programs and trees that have died or been removed, but not replaced. There has been a big increase in e-bikes / scooters on shared paths, mostly by irresponsible youth who have no comprehension of the dangers involved. I was overtaken by a young boy who rode with high speed on the shared footpath in Mitchell Road.

He could hardly control the bike and was speeding past and towards pedestrians. What does need to happen before this will be forbidden? Parents should not allow their children to ride these vehicles at all, and heavy fines need to be imposed on users who have modified their e-vehicles to go faster than the allowed speed limit. Why not ride a normal bike, and get some proper exercise instead of putting other people in danger.

For the past three months, four buses have been parked night and day on Kingsway, just east of Sylvania Road, at Miranda, dangerously hindering the vision of people crossing the road and effectively taking out 100 metres of one entire traffic lane. I spoke to the council who asked me to contact the RMS. Is this another example of council choosing to do nothing? I really am puzzled about how people will be able to charge their EVs (Electric Vehicles) in the future.

At the moment the power supply is coping with demand it seems. But sales of EVs are on the increase. Building of Hi-rise blocks of units continues unabated.

A garage with a standard 10 amp outlet maybe ok for an overnight charge, but what if everybody has their car on charge too? And what about all the cars parked in the street if they are mainly EVs at some time in the future? Will the government have to run in charging posts up and down the streets? If so, that’s a major project, unspoken about so far. Street outlets would need to be weather proofed. I refer to a council letter dated 26 October 2023 (weeks after the so called consultation period was said to have ended) stating that my property had been identified as potentially flood affected.

However, when reviewing the Overland Flood Study, the area identified is contained on the street below my property, there is an 8-10 feet vertical fall from my property boundary to the street area that has been identified, and the highlighted area does not breach my property line. I therefore object to the inclusion of my property as being identified as potentially flood affected, and I object any adjustments to the Planning Certificate of my property. This has been included in error and must be corrected.

Despite multiple unanswered and unresponded phone calls, attempts to book one on one information sessions which are booked out, and multiple letters to the council/survey contractors, I have not received a single response to my concerns. .