Woody pear questions remain unanswered

The headline "Woody pear removal explained" (Peninsula News, November.15) is both inaccurate and misleading.

Cr Latella asked why two woody pears were removed yet Ms Colleen Worthy-Jennings for Gosford Council claims "a woody pear tree" had been removed. Why?

And so what your readers may ask?

No attempt made to explain the significance, rarity or why xylomelum pyriforme is protected under Schedule 13 of the NSW Threatened Species Act and a $10,000 fine applies for the removal of these trees.

The rest of this sorry story goes some way to explaining why council is the most complained about in this State.

When this development was advertised and we were invited to comment upon it, I took a short stroll up the street to have a look at the trees as it makes me sick that every development in this tree lined pocket sees people move here, pay a premium for the pleasure, then destroy all the trees on every block.

Noticing the xylomelums I was told that all trees would be retained and that the developer had agreed to this and relocated the garage to enable the trees to be retained.

I thanked the planner for her effort and call and, on the following Tuesday, the developer thanked me by removing the trees. What a bastard act.

Why has Worthy-Jennings not answered the question of why I was told the trees would be retained?

And why were "the woody pear trees not included in the assessment" when the possible destruction of these trees formed the basis for my making a submission to the council?

Why were these trees removed when they "were not indicated on the development plans for removal"?

The outcome of this sad tale is that the developer has moved the garage closer to the front boundary, giving extra recreational space to preserve the trees and the trees were then removed.

And this is called planning?

Bryan Ellis, Umina