Carolina Arango’s Post

If this truly is the impact of how the bill will be enacted, then B.C. Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon, respectfully, that is... incomprehensible. Decades of work, millions if not billions of dollars, countless grass roots and high level non profits and community organizations, and entire careers have gone into protecting urban tree canopies, tree retention policies, and educating the public on why urban trees are vital to social and environmental well-being; not just economic benefits. The fight to protect urban trees has held steady for years. Unfortunately, continues to this day, and legislation like this will ONLY cement the war against our biodiversity and urban canopy; if not offer the ultimate solution on a silver platter to Developers. You mean to tell me that the M.O.H. is proposing housing legislation to overrule the protection of urban trees; in order to railroad in a housing bill that gives a historically poorly managed/self regulated + relatively undeserving group (Developers) a blank check with land use? Insane. The "Unduly Restrict" opt-out is a neat little trick, but we see right through it. It's an exit clause, a get-out-of-jail free card,... nothing more. Have you checked in with your fellow Ministers to consider the impact of this? George Heyman Bruce Ralston, KC and Nathan Cullen could give you some advice on why this is a bad thing. "In a nutshell, the new legislation takes aim at single family zoning. It overrides the ability of municipalities to decide what type of housing is built on the majority of residential land in the province, upending years of community planning informed by public consultations. In a one-size-fits-all approach to a housing crisis decades in the making, the legislation automatically permits construction of three to six residential units... It severely restricts or eliminates all public hearings, tilting the scales in favour of real estate developers. It makes it far more challenging, and perhaps impossible, for municipal councils to protect Garry oaks, or any other trees, wetlands or ecosystems — much less ask developers to alter construction plans to safeguard urban tree canopies and wildlife. “Every project has to respect the pieces of legislation that are in place to protect the environment,” Kahlon tells The Narwhal. But B.C. lacks legislation to protect or enhance urban tree canopies. It also has no stand-alone legislation to protect species or ecosystems at risk of extinction. And even though Bill 44 doesn’t remove local environmental protections such as tree by-laws, the new legislation says municipal rules can’t “unduly restrict” density — a phrase open to interpretation, which observers fear will allow new development to trump efforts to preserve urban trees, forests and greenways, even as the climate crisis deepens." Read via The Narwhal: https://bit.ly/3SPbBDJ

We are devastated by the Minister for Planning's, John Carey MLA, announcement yesterday that he has rejected the City of Nedland's and the City of South Perth's proposed protections for large trees on private land. Both Cities were proposing meaningful action on behalf of their local communities to address their declining canopy cover. The provisions required a landowner to get the City’s approval and consider all alternatives before removing a large tree that has taken decades to grow and is of significant community value. The provisions were not anti-development; a tree that made development unviable could be removed. The Minister has said: ·      The provisions are “punitive”, BUT similar provisions apply in all other States and life goes on. Any wonder we have the lowest canopy cover of any capital city and it’s getting lower. ·      The provisions would require you to get approval to prune your neighbours overhanging tree BUT only if it was a large tree and the pruning would likely result in it's death. ·      The provisions were not supported by the wider community, BUT both City's received a record number of submissions in support. ·      The provisions hit Mums and Dads and others in less dense areas, BUT the City of South Perth provisions were to apply to high, medium and low density areas alike. ·      He can’t sacrifice the delivery of housing, BUT other States deliver housing and increased canopy. Don’t we all deserve liveable, healthy housing and that includes trees; the rich, the poor and everyone in between? It's called Tree Equity. ·      WATCA - WA Tree Canopy Advocates are lecturing to the community, BUT we ARE the community. And we represent 23 local Tree Canopy Advocacy groups, with more to be announced shortly. The Minister for Planning is now proposing to develop a Greening Strategy BUT with the lowest tree canopy in the country and the shot hole borer decimating trees across the city, any Strategy that doesn't include trees on private land is not only inadequate, it's like fighting a wildfire with a garden hose. We need the Minister for Planning to give a toss about trees, before we are toast. #urbantrees #treeprotection #urbanheatisland #urbanforest #urbangreening #livablecities #healthycities #sustainablecities #shotholeborer #WATCA #WALGA #WAPC #CityofSouthPerth #CityofNedlands

Street trees make a considerable difference to the quality of urban environments, yet the coverage remains low. Street trees provide shade, visual amenity, intercept and reduce storm water, help drop pollutants out of the air, reduce energy costs and increase property values. Most significantly they reduce the impacts of urban heat island effects through shade and evaporative cooling benefits. Thermal camera mapping has shown tree canopies can reduce pavement surface temperature by up to 30degrees Celsius. This is important in reducing the urban heat island effect by reducing the radiated heat from road pavements. But street tree canopy cover is quite often limited in low socioeconomic and rural areas as outlined in this article. A street tree canopy cover of 40% is the current desired metric, but Increasing street tree cover in existing streets can be challenging. Limiting factors include overhead power lines, underground services, areas that can’t be planted like residential driveways, and resistance from residents. And lastly cost of installation. Urban tree retrofits are expensive and can range from $500 a tree in suburban streets to $5000+ in city streets. Then they need to be looked after for the first year at least. A simple metric that I have been thinking about to fund street tree coverage Australia wide through the Government funding is to ask for one tree per person. This is more than one tree per house, but is easier than counting all the houses in Australia. The excess would go into parks. That way a rural town of 25,000 people gets allocated funds for 25,000 trees. At $500 a tree this is $12.5Million, perhaps split 50:30:20 Federal/ State/ local government. Extrapolated to Australia’s population to get 26.6Million trees, that’s $13.3Billion. I’m not sure how successful we would be in convincing the government for this amount of money simply for trees, but that is the scale of the issue. #trees #climatepositive #landscapearchitecture https://lnkd.in/gFGMawhH

Country park and 130 homes proposed for Hampshire site 🏘️🤔 Bargate Homes Ltd has submitted an outline planning application for a new country park and 130 homes on a site at Overton in Hampshire. If approved, the country park would take up more than half of the 19-hectare site. Located west of Sapley Lane, the proposed housing development would create 130 mixed-tenure new homes with 40 per cent allocated for affordable housing. They would be delivered by VIVID – the parent company of Bargate Homes. The 15-hectare country park is set to be a multifunctional public green space. It would support a range of activities, including natural play areas for young children, and seating areas. New planting of native trees and shrubs is proposed, as well as the rewilding of areas to promote and enhance local biodiversity. Continue reading... https://lnkd.in/eGwHk6xt #housebuilder #property #construction #park #planning #residentialproperty #hantsnews #hantshour #businessnews #businessintelligence

The metropolitan suburbs of Adelaide, including the City of Adelaide, have one of the lowest levels of tree canopies in the world. Planning to fine people up to $40,000 for the destruction of mature trees is enough incentive to do the right thing for the environment, and legislation should be enacted ASAP. These proposed protections probably end the "Grany Flat" plans around Suburban Adelaide to solve the chronic shortage of affordable rental accommodation, as only the inner older suburbs of Suburban Adelaide have block sizes to allow space for Grany Flat. Today, Adelaide has around shortfall of 50,000 dwellings in affordable and social housing. It's beyond crisis, and Metropolitan Adelaide's public transport infrastructure has among the world's lowest-density housing. The lots have been shrinking for decades in new suburbs in the "Outer" metropolitan suburbs of Adelaide. Today, there's unlikely enough space to plant even a small tree, let alone a tree, to provide a suitable size canopy. In my past major urban projects in South Australia, I have taken particular care to save all mature trees as they add value to projects, especially inner city suburbs with residential grade mid-rise apartments or large-scale medium-density housing. #Adelaide #trees #canopies

Hello Sharon, Tomorrow night at 7 PM the City Council will be hearing the fourth proposal to change the zoning of the 14 acres at 6900 Pool Road & 2417 Wilkes Drive. I hope you can attaned the hearing to let your opposition be known. This proposal is very similar to one denied a third time on Dec. 19th, 2023. The current proposal has the same 9 home sites as the prior proposal, and the site plan layout appears to be the same. If this is a very similar zoning change to the prior request why should the outcome be different? The Landowner bought AG, he can develop AG. If you agree that this is still the wrong plan for this land, here’s a link to review and submit a prewritten opposition letter to the city. https://lnkd.in/gqtHpxt5 If you prefer, and you are encouraged to write your own email to the city at Citizenletters@colleyville.com. If you do, please copy me so it can be shared it with others. Here's an email recently shared by fellow Colleyville Citizens: "To Colleyville City Council, We are again writing to express our opposition to the request to rezone (Case ZC24-014) the lot located at 2417 Wilkes Drive and 6900 Pool Road, Colleyville, Texas 76034 from agricultural to residential. To recap the previously stated valid reasons for rejecting this request: · Damage to the existing mature tree coverage at that site, with subsequent runoff and drainage issues. · Impact to wildlife, which uses that area as a transit path along Big Bear Creek. · Increased traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods. · Impact from the immense amount of regrading necessary to build on this property. We are very disappointed that, despite interest from Texas Trust for Public Land in purchasing part of this property for preservation, apparently Colleyville officials have no interest in pursuing this. We find it odd, if not hypocritical, that Colleyville willingly purchases land for development, but not for preservation. It appears that Colleyville listens more to developers than its citizens. In 2018, the Newton Administration established a Strategic Priority to address the community's dwindling open spaces. We believe that the current council should adhere to this priority and focus on preserving the remaining green space to maintain the quality of life that makes Colleyville a special place for its citizens, their children, and future generations. This development is not in the best interest of the citizens of Colleyville. We urge that the City Council listen to its citizens and reject this rezoning request. Thank you for your attention. Respectfully, Bob & Rita" Preserving Colleyville's remaining green spaces and trees is crucial for maintaining our town's unique charm as a residential oasis within the DFW heat island. By conserving these natural areas, we can retain our distinctive rural feel and enhance property values. Please forward this email to your Colleyville friend Thank you, Tim Waterworth

Farmland could unlock 587 homes to help meet Middlesbrough’s needs. Around 587 private and affordable homes could be built to address Middlesbrough’s housing needs under plans submitted by Bellway Strategic Land.   Middlesbrough Council has been asked to consider a detailed application for a 106-acre site at Stainton Vale Farm.   The proposals show open spaces and environmental improvements, including work to enhance Stainton Beck.                                                                          🗣 Martyn Earle, Strategic Land Director for Bellway Strategic Land, said: “These plans for Stainton Vale Farm would bring more high-quality, energy-efficient private and affordable homes to Middlesbrough. This would help people looking to buy, rent or explore shared ownership options.   “We shared our vision for the scheme with the council and the local community before submitting a planning application. Taking their feedback on board, we have proposed a scheme which would provide ecological benefits, great transport connections and a boost to the local economy through job creation.   “The development would be centred around a green open space. Our landscaping proposals would protect and enhance wildlife habitats, and a new bus loop would provide easy access to public transport.”   Stainton Vale Farm borders the A19. The new homes would be accessed via Low Lane with a new crossing for Stainton Beck.   Martyn said: "This location is highlighted as an allocation in the Draft Local Plan. As a responsible national housebuilder, we have the expertise and resources to ensure the homes are built in a timely manner and to the highest standards, all while increasing biodiversity and natural habitats on the site.” For more information on Bellway’s commitment to sustainable building, see ➡️ https://lnkd.in/eNEGfe93

Trees - Houses In our cities a balance needs to be struck between the need for vegetation and our need for housing in our urban areas. In Perth it seems that some councils proposals to require permits to remove trees over 8m in height on private property are likely to be vetoed by the Planning Minister on the basis of the impact such laws would have on the ability to supply much needed housing and their impact of private property rights. Meanwhile on the Gold Coast, where there is also a pressing need for housing, the council recently passed a resolution to require a permit to remove any tree over 3m in height or a tree that has a girth of 150mm or more in any part of the city including all private land In the proposed changes they are also attemping to remove the existing right of land owners to remove trees within the boundaries of each lot which currently is 1.5m for residential lots, 3m for larger lots and 6m for rural res type lots. In West Australia this is a big issue. On the Gold Coast not one column centimetre has been written on the proposed loss of such private property rights and the likely impacts of those changes on the provision of housing within the city. When the agenda item to consider these drastic changes was put to the council before its planning committee, there was no presentation of the proposal for councillors to be properly informed of the changes sought and nor was there ANY discussion or debate about what should have been a contentious item when such changes to private property rights are proposed. I wonder what our Planning Minister Meaghan Scanlon MP will say or do when these proposed laws come to her for endorsement?

The South Perth Council will decide on Tuesday night whether they are prepared to show leadership and adopt a Tree Retention Local Planning Policy based on the WA Local Government Association (WALGA) template. The intent of the Policy is to require development approval for the removal of large mature trees and excessive pruning of large mature trees intended to kill them. The provisions DO NOT prohibit tree removal, they are not anti-density or anti-development, they are simply seeking to future proof new development and our suburbs so that they are healthy and livable. If a large tree is located so that it makes development unviable its removal can be approved. Similarly if a tree poses a serious safety risk to people or property its removal can be approved. We have a Canopy Crisis in Perth with the lowest canopy of any Australian capital city. Even the City of South Perth that prides itself on its green leafy character has neighbourhoods with less than 5% canopy cover!!!! The South Perth and wider community strongly supported proposed tree retention provisions in Local Planning Scheme No. 7, but sadly the Minister for Planning ignored this and rejected them earlier this year. The South Perth and wider community have again come out strongly in support of tree retention and the Local Planning Policy now proposed, with 70.3% of submissions in support including 63.4% of submissions received from South Perth residents. But the Councillors may be wavering based on the wide range and nature of questions asked at the Council's Agenda Briefing Meeting last Tuesday. YES we strongly believe tree protections should be uniform across WA cities and towns, BUT our State Government is refusing to act. The WALGA Policy approach is a way for Local Governments to take action when the State won’t. It is not ok for our decision makers to keep passing the buck.  If not South Perth Council then who, if not now then when??? One of the main sticking points appears to be the provisions for maintenance pruning that can be done without approval being too restrictive. While the WALGA template is based on best practice in the eastern states, it seems this may be a bridge too far for some Perth people who cherish their private property rights over and above community and a gentler approach is required. We are happy for more generous maintenance pruning provisions to be considered given this is new to WA. Ending the moonscaping of properties without due consideration of the cost to our community is the top priority here. So any suggestions on how much pruning should be allowed before development approval to avoid over pruning or repetitive pruning intended to kill a tree??? #treeretention #treeprotections #urbanforest #urbanheat #CanopyCrisis #livablecities #sustainablecities #healthycities #stopthechop #WATCA

Hello {First Name} Monday night, the Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Bluffs Development Zoning Change request Case ZC24-014 by a vote of 5-1. To view the recorded webcast of the hearing click this link: Bluffs P&Z Hearing. The latest proposal for the 14 acres at 6900 Pool Road & 2417 Wilkes Drive is very similar to the proposal that was denied a third time on Dec. 19th, 2023. The current proposal has the same number of 9 home sites as the prior proposal, and the site plan layout appears to be the same. If this is a very similar zoning change to the prior request why should the outcome be different? The Landowner bought AG, he can develop AG. If you agree that this is still the wrong plan for this land, here’s a link to review and submit a prewritten opposition letter to the city. https://lnkd.in/gqtHpxt5 If you prefer, you are encouraged to write your own email to the city at Citizenletters@colleyville.com. If you do, please copy me so it can be shared it with others. Here's an email share by Kathleen W. of Colleyville "Mayor Lindamood and Council, I’ve lived here over forty years and have witnessed numerous assaults that have compromised the aesthetics of this community. Enough floodplains have been built in, enough green space has been destroyed, enough houses have been built one on top of another, majestic oaks have been leveled, monies have been wasted on vanity projects, and the list goes on and on. Why doesn’t this council just have the gumption to say enough is enough and stop kowtowing to builders and developers whose only interest is to make a buck with no regard for the little beauty remaining in Colleyville? The choice should be crystal clear." The city has made strong commitments to conservation through its codes, the 2018 Master Parks, Rec, and Open Space Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan. In 2018, the Newton Administration established a Strategic Priority to address the community's dwindling open spaces over the next 5-10 years. Mayor Newton personally assured me that this was a commitment to action and urged citizens to hold the City's elected leaders accountable for delivering on this priority. How do you think our city leaders have delivered on this strategic priority over the past six years? Preserving Colleyville's remaining green spaces and trees is crucial for maintaining its unique charm as a residential oasis within the DFW heat island. By conserving these natural areas, we can retain our distinctive rural feel and enhance property values. Please forward this email to your Colleyville friends and neighbors to keep them informed and to request their support. Below is the contact information for our city council members should you wish to reach out to them directly. Thank you, Tim Waterworth