MAPPED: Advertiser analysis reveals number of applications to chop down trees by council area

Worried about our disappearing trees? For the first time, The Advertiser has mapped where we are losing trees – by suburb and species. EXPLORE THE MAP + TABLES.

Explore the map to see how many trees have been removed in your council area.

Authorities are approving the axing of at least two mature trees a day across metropolitan Adelaide with river red gums and other eucalyptus most likely to fall victim to the chainsaw, an investigation can reveal.

The Advertiser has, for the first time, analysed development applications across 15 metropolitan councils and mapped the species and location of hundreds of trees approved for removal across most of suburban Adelaide. SEE MAP BELOW.

The comprehensive snapshot, extracted from online application registers of the 2018/19 financial year, reveals councils and the state planning commission approved the felling of more than 800 regulated and significant trees – those with a circumference greater than two metres and needing approval to be removed.

But the actual number of all trees removed is unknown as hundreds if not thousands more trees with a girth smaller than 2m can be removed without approval, as can trees within 20m of a house at medium-to-high bushfire risk..

DPTI can also remove trees for major projects, such as the 180 gums sacrificed for the Golden Grove Road upgrade, without approval

The paper reviewed 597 applications for tree removals in 18/19 revealing:

AUTHORITIES approved 566 applications to remove 811 trees;

ONLY 31 applications to remove 34 trees were refused;

EUCALYPTUS , predominantly river red gums, were the most common genus removed followed by willow myrtles

SALISBURY Council had the highest number of trees - 236 - approved for removal in 18/19, but the bulk were street trees, followed by Onkaparinga and Marion council;

BURNSIDE Council refused the most applications (seven).

SIGNIFICANT TREES, with a trunk girth of 3m or more, represented 32 per cent of trees targeted for removal.

Prospect Council was the only council not included in the data because it does not have a public register for inspection.

The majority of applications did not specify reasons why applicants sought removal of trees, but some councils provided clarification such as trees being in “poor health” or a “risk to safety”.

The species of tree was not listed on all development applications requiring The Advertiser to seek that information from councils.

Premier Steven Marshall announced in January that greening suburbs would be a “key priority” of a push to tackle climate change.

The government is pressing ahead with a target set by its predecessors to increase urban green cover – trees, bushes, grasses – by 20 per cent by 2045 across most council areas.

Increased urban infill has been attributed to ongoing loss of trees across metropolitan Adelaide.

Conservation SA, the state’s peak environment body, said it has been trying to gather tree loss numbers from across the city.

The organisation’s chief executive Craig Wilkins said that while not all councils kept the statistics it was clear that where data did exist it showed a “dramatic reduction” in large trees and that the main loss is from backyards, particularly for development.

“Looking after our big trees is arguably the single best public health investment for our cities,” he said.

“Big trees significantly increase our mental health and well-being, encourage us to do more exercise, clean our air and are essential for cooling our streets – they are the airconditioner.

“With climate change rapidly increasing temperatures in built up areas, particularly at night, cutting down trees is like throwing away ventilators ahead of a pandemic.”

Conservation SA, in partnership with councils and community groups, has launched a report “What’s Happening to Adelaide’s Trees’ to raise awareness of the declining tree canopy and the benefit of trees.

The report notes that while councils and communities are working hard to plant trees there is not enough space on public land to replace what is being lost in backyards.

“The causes (driving loss) are many including inadequate protection through our planning system, and a lack of appreciation by some in the community of just how valuable they are,” the report says.

“Planting new trees is not enough. We must stop the loss of mature trees across our suburbs if

we have any chance of increasing our urban canopy cover.”

Among the report’s recommendations to arrest the loss of urban trees are:

CHANGING planning laws to encourage tree retention;

REDEFINE significant and regulated trees beyond just a tree’s circumference and expand the list of common and “important” trees to be retained;

REQUIRE mandatory plantings of trees in new developments;

PROVIDE incentives, including funding, for developers and homeowners to retain or plant larger trees;

CALCULATE the true financial value of significant trees.

*Story updated to include data from Tea Tree Gully Council which had been omitted from original version.

‘I don’t like my grandchildren playing out the back’

SISTERS Lyn Marshall and Wendy Napper don’t like their neighbour.

They say it’s messy, a nuisance and they fear will one day kill or injure them or one of their grandchildren.

But this neighbour – a giant river red gum home to lorikeets and possums – has likely been part of their Warradale neighbourhood for centuries and isn’t going anywhere, despite the pair’s best efforts to have it removed.

“We bought thinking ‘oh, it will just be a few leaves, that will be fine,” Ms Napper, 61, said. “Well it’s not just a few leaves … I don’t like my grandchildren playing out the back here.

“Everyone who lives under this tree hates the tree, we all would do anything to get rid of it.”

Ms Napper and Ms Marshall bought their Bowker Street house in 2010. Theirs is one of 18 built in recent years, replacing what used to be five houses. Many of the new homes now surround the gum tree, putting residents in conflict with the towering eucalypt.

Sisters Lyn Marshall, 71, and Wendy Napper, 61 live together in their home at Warradale but with a neighbour they dislike - a massive river red gum! The owner of the tree has tried three times to get the tree removed but Marion Council has so far refused. Picture: Tom Huntley

Ms Napper, Ms Marshall and the tree’s owner Mish Millar, have applied three times unsuccessfully to Marion Council seeking to have the tree felled.

“We use the slant on the danger of the tree cause they can drop limbs (but) one arborist who came out said there’s more chance I’d drown in the bath then that tree would kill me,” Ms Napper said. “It actually does damage to the house. If they really cared about this tree they (council) should never have allowed these houses (to be built).”

She said one neighbour two doors down moved out “in fear” after a big branch crushed a fence.

Ms Napper said in hindsight she would not have bought the house.

“But you don’t realise until you live with it (the tree), what it’s actually going to be like,” she said.

Ms Millar, who lives on Kangaroo Island but bought the Bowker St house as a city residence when she gets relief teaching jobs in Adelaide, said all neighbours were angry about the tree.

“We feel threatened by it but they (council) don’t seem to care,” she said.

- Renato Castello