Re article "Danger from above: council acts of troublesome trees by refining removal policy" (Leader, April 3).
I write to express my appreciation and support for the refined policy of the Sutherland Shire Council on the removal of troublesome trees.
It is well established, under common law, that a home owner has a sacrosanct right to live in his home feeling safe and secure from any external danger.
Consequently if a home owner believes that a tree on his property or on council's property, by it's position, or size or proximity to the building, is a cause of fear or insecurity the owner is unable to consider his home as a safe refuge.
I also point out that with the changes in the weather, the Sutherland Shire has recently experienced many severe storms when extensive property damages were caused by fallen branches and trees, fortunately with no serious or fatal injuries.
I ask the council to be proactive on the implementation of this policy, specially on council property, by removing trees that pose a threat to property and personal safety, before it finds itself responsible for serious property damage or a fatality.
I note Cr Ray Plibersek's reservation on the policy. I don't think this will make the shire ''a treeless desert'' and hope the councillor places safety and life above a landscape aesthetic consideration.
Marc de Cazanove, Menai
More than ten thousand applications per year at $160 each!
Does anyone else think that it is outrageous that the council has created a system where it rakes in $1.6 million per year from ratepayers for a basic service that should be provided for a fraction of that cost.
It seems the council has now found another way to profit from excess.
Brian Hames, Burraneer
I love Eucalyptus trees, which seem to be the big problem in residential areas because they drop branches.
Safety of homeowners and their property should be important to the the council.
We need as many trees as possible for oxygen and better air quality. Every tree removed by the council, residents or developers should immediately be replaced with another, more appropriate tree.
It saddens me to see huge numbers of trees being removed for development, the brick pit area and along the highway being an example. Development should be incorporating the existing, surrounding vegetation into their plans.
So ridiculous when they would chop down any tree in the way of development and allow a horror like the brick pit yet can't allow a tree to be chopped down if it presents danger!
Our neighbours have a massive eucalyptus tree that's leaning over our property and has destroyed the fence which is on a massive lean as is the retaining wall.
We fear for the safety of our children and cannot use 50 per cent of our backyard as a result.
Should the tree fall, it will take out five backyards, powerlines and a public walkway which kids use to walk to school.
Council rejected the request of neighbours to remove the tree. Council said it would affect the skyline and had no concerns regarding safety or property damage.
Yet can easily remove a tree in our street on council property that's interfering with their infrastructure.
Trees of this size should not be allowed in suburban backyards.