.. council plant/provide the wrong street trees in the wrong locations in a lot of instances having to chop up trees, weaken them because they are planted under power lines or cables seems prevalent in Bayside. Street trees should only be planted where they do not conflict with existing street infrastructure... nor should they be planted where they block driver vision (another issue) Finally council still seem to plant trees that are deciduous or lose large amounts of leaves. Why?

Deciduous trees are beautiful.

.. deciduous trees have no place as street trees, they create a huge mess, block drains etc (and us ratepayers pay for this)

Yes. I'm a rate-payer as well. The deciduous trees are some of the reasons why I chose to live in this area. Possibly, it's different in your area. But, in my experience, everything about the deciduous trees has been enjoyable for me and my family. One autumn, a few years ago, a neighbour came over to my house to aplogise for all the leaves that fall off his tree and land in my yard. My response was "it's worth it." That tree provides shade in summer and the colours it changes into in autumn are spectacular.

My once quiet Brighton street is seeing a lot of development ,nature strip trees are removed and replaced almost never with the dominant variety, Our street is home to mature paperbarks. Habitat to magpies ,lorikeets & wattle birds. Informed that our trees are due to be replaced ,for no good reason.These trees are lower than power lines ,not interfering with footpaths & not dropping leaves in the gutters, I fear just on a whim. Council tell me Brighton residents prefer an English look. We need to protect our heritage and provide native birds & creatures habitat.

Safety is a major issue. If there is a car parked outside, I have no vision down the road when leaving the driveway until I have cleared the tree and parked car!

Why was my (unwanted) naturestip tree reclassified from being "an historical tree of the area" to "an example of the type of tree planted in the area". Originally from the Blue Mountains!! And is worth $32,000 according to BCC valuation policy, despite dropping limbs annually

Martin St. trees impact on the footpaths, the fences of street side properties and also the edges of the streets. Martin St. has a large number of aged residents living within close proximity to the railway station and the footpaths are very unsafe causing lots of trips and falls. I used to go walking around this area but now drive to another area due to having fallen and tripped many times on the footpaths. Bayside council please consider your residents safety,

I am in Beaumaris, a vegetation protection overlay 3. The nature strip trees in my street are Eucalypts, Banksia and She Oaks. The mature Height of trees should be considered. Where they are pruned for power lines their shape is massacred, leaving a gaping hole in the canopy. The dropping of debris should be considered. Eucalypts leaves sterilise the ground beneath them to bare dust and sand. They drop branches up to 2 m, twigs and gum nuts as nature strip and footpath hazards, and especially in the high winds off the Bay. They grow too high. The coastal Bankia need formative pruning to maintain a good shape. They also drop branches up to 2 m, and large seed pods. This is exacerbated by the galahs and black cockatoos and magpies that fight in them and destroy the foliage for food. This damages cars and lawn mowers and blocks the storm water drains. She oaks drop needles that sterilise the ground to all undergrowth, and fruit that is a hazard to tread on. The choice of large to very large nature strip trees should be changed to medium trees, like bottle brush. This would allow for grass or plant growth beneath the tree canopy, and reduce the need for pruning around power lines. It would reduce the community and property damage from leaves, branches and tree litter.

The main question that needs to be asked initially is what is the purpose of a any nature strip tree? The answer is it should complement the diverse inner urban, environmental and social character. The main word is "complement" Just as important as this is that any tree selection should be able to tolerate conditions such as soil type, pollution, reflected heat from buildings and roads, small constrained spaces, overhead power lines, underground services and potential damage to buildings and fences, Another important criteria is the dropping of limbs which have the potential to damage not only property but more importantly people. The dropping of berries and leaves is an impost to not only residents who need to live with these features but demand ongoing council maintenance which ultimately results in a cost borne by the ratepayers. Invasive root systems with their ability to cause damage should not be accepted and or tolerated. Trees that are inappropriate and problematic and that do not meet any of the above salient criteria should be evaluated and replaced with a more suitable variety.

One of the criteria listed in the draft mentioned "minimal impact on surrounding infrastructure". With this in mind, I would like to comment that the trees which have been used in our street (Vista Rd in Hampton) and surrounding streets Have had a great impact on the power lines in the streets. Then they have to be cut back, leaving them with ugly extended limbs (VERY poorly pruned by Citywide) which are then at risk of falling in high winds (eg some of the trees in Hoyt St). My proposal is that MUCH smaller trees be planted, which never reach the power lines. Council's pruning bill would be reduced drastically, and thee safety of residents would be assured. Many of the trees planted in our street have subsequently died anyway, or have been destroyed by possums- not good choices made for the trees at all! On the subject of possums, could the council review its policy on the clearing of building sites? At the moment, it appears to be a policy of allowing blocks to be totally cleared, leaving no mature trees for nesting and food for the possums, and also reducing the total of mature trees in the area- not an ecologically sound policy. Bayside's carbon footprint increases greatly when this occurs, especially when replanting on many block does not include replacement trees, nor native plants to attract and keep the local birds in Bayside.

The Draft Policy seems to be comprehensive and informative. I believe that greater use can be made of smaller, flowering, native trees, even where the nature strip is of "medium" size. These will reduce impact on paths, drains and overhead wires, and attract nectar-feeding native birds. An excellent candidate is the small Eucalypt (name unknown) planted on the north side footpath in Service Street Hampton, outside the Hampton Medical Clinic (east of the library). These flower for many months a year, seem very tough, and their small trunks and roots seem to cause minimum disturbance. I would like to se them (and similar trees) used more widely.

Size is a big issue and the comments below reflect this also. A red gum was planted in a thin nature strip at the front of my property in Black Rock in 2002. It has cracked and damaged the footpath and gutters on numerous occasions and now blocks 3-4 hours of precious winter sun due to its imposing size. It is large enough that if it lost limbs they would potentially cause damage to my home. In terms of protecting infrastructure, the selection of appropriate species is essential. In terms of sustainably, this tree has definitely impacted important solar gain. I hope the council takes this opportunity to preserve ratepayer resources (i.e. not having to continually repair damaged footpaths and gutters) and protects resident amenity.

Absolutely agree with regard to the size of many of the gums in Hampton streets. Such trees are majestic in the bush or even in a parkland but they are too big for nature strips and when they are overly pruned to allow wires to pass through they become ugly but more importantly a potential hazard in storms and high winds. There are so many more suitable type medium sized trees available.