Trees should stay

I am writing in relation to streetscaping in Heyfield.

In January 2000 Heyfield’s Temple St (the main shopping precinct) was closed off for six months while the streetscaping was improved and completed.

To get to this stage, it took 25 years of hard work by the Heyfield traders and three years of hard lobbying by myself and others.

A lot of input was requested and received and we democratically accepted a streetscape that many were against – gum trees.

Cr Hole was requested (in no uncertain terms) not to go ahead with gum trees, by myself and others.

Now, 12 years later, when the street is starting to take shape and look nice, Wellington Shire wants it all removed.


I have requested an answer but have not been given one.

I am presuming the trees to be a liability.

If that is the case, why is it that footpaths with holes are not a liability?

I think this is a total waste of ratepayers’ money and the destruction of healthy trees and plant life.

Why is it that the Wellington Shire can only inform the ratepayers concerned the week before work is sceduled to begin?

Why is it that a community representative committee can only represent their own thoughts and ideas and not request input from those ratepayers that the changes affect?

It would be a pity if the rotting kangaroo could be removed, seeing it could never be maintained, or that the tiles the school children laid could be seen, that the OK corrals could actually get more that one coat of oil in 12 years – and what


the stainless steels arcs for?

The trees give shade.

They flower and are quite beautiful and bring all the native birds.

Yes, they drop their branches, but the shire knew that before they were planted.

All trees fall over or drop branches in big winds.

Why do the plants need to come out?