With these large increases in Council's rate income, courtesy of the VG, why would they need a further Special Rate Variation? I cannot afford a 38pc increase this year, immediately followed by a 36.3pc increase over the next 2 years!

The vast majority of ratepayers are against this proposal, as shown by the TRC survey, but the Council are still ploughing ahead with the application going to IPART. If any of your readers are concerned about suffering this double-whammy of rate rises, I encourage them to fill in the short survey on IPART's website before the 18th of this month.

Michael Chamberlain, Nundle

Have your say, send a letter to the editor

I was pleased to see the article "Cooling Down Our City" on the front of your paper 29/2/24.

Since I came to Tamworth in 1980 we have lost many of our older trees. I live in White Street which used to have predominately Silky Oaks all the way to Raglan Street. These provided food for our Honeyeaters, Mistletoe birds, lorikeets, bats and possums when they flowered and hollows for parrots to nest in. The few replacements have provided nothing except roosts for feral birds as they were non native.

I am concerned about the Council's choice of the 18 trees to be planted. Desert Ash will survive 50 years or so and grow to about 10 metres. They are in Iran, Turkey and Southern Europe and should survive here. However Aristocrat Pear is a poor choice. It is fast growing and short-lived. Survival is 15-20 years, flowers smell unpleasant and it is invasive so banned in a number of states in the USA.

In looking at pictures of Tamworth from last century most trees used were eucalypts or Silky Oaks. These were inexpensive and readily available.

Please rethink before wasting more of our money. Grants come from taxpayers and should not be wasted.

Lyn Allen, East Tamworth

My late grandmother who resided in the modest home my family and I now live in at South Tamworth often told me "I should always call a spade a spade". She was a sweet and caring lady and it was good advice.

As readers might know the Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has opened submissions into your Council's proposed 36.3pc rate increase which will impact homeowners, renters, pensioners and businesses everywhere within our LGA. Some long-term residents recently warned me that if our council gets that increase approved, they are leaving. They believe why pay over $4,000 in rates in Tamworth when they could pay around $2,600 elsewhere? Some East and South Tamworth households may be up for over $5,000 in annual rates. Their comments were also in the context of other issues afflicting our region - health services in disarray, crime and antisocial behaviour uncontrollable with many offenders nicknamed "the untouchables", neglected roads and other infrastructure.

Have your say, send a letter to the editor

I know that this proposal will harm the welfare of many TRC residents and I am concerned about their capacity to pay. I fear that if this increase is approved, it will be business as usual, because NO significant savings, efficiencies or cuts have been made to the Council organisation despite the assurances made by Council's leadership. Our council needs a focus on getting back to basics and prioritising core statutory service delivery, I have never thought that could be too difficult.

If you are concerned about this massive rate impost like I am, I urge you to make a submission to IPART at https://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au. As always, if I can help you, please do not hesitate to contact me as I have the honour to be your obedient servant.

Mark Rodda, Tamworth

It is extremely pleasing that the Australian Federal government has been, for some time now, inviting the public to comment by 4.3.24 on Australia's proposed new vehicle efficiency standards.

At the present time 85pc of the world car market standards already require cars to be more efficient and cheaper to run. Australia has no such efficiency standards in place. If efficiency standards were in place in Australia this would be a significant counter to Human induced climate change because of the resulting cleaner air, and could also reduce car fuel costs up to 20pc.

It is a great pity that some major car corporations are running scare campaigns to protect their profits in relation to the Federal government proposed new vehicle efficiency standards. If the car corporations succeed to inhibit progress in relation to the proposed standards this will be to the detriment of many Australians concerning their health and car running costs.

Brian Measday, Kingswood South Australia

As someone who grew up in and loves regional Australia, I too want to keep Australians safe from the ravages of floods and fires ("Us survivors are fed up with shock jocks" 26/2). I'd also like all 1900 threatened species of our beautiful flora and fauna to survive and thrive. In this context, like Jo Dodds, I also find misinformation that threatens the rollout of renewable energy, the most credible solution to the climate challenge, extremely disappointing. There are examples across Australia of communities making themselves more resilient by installing wind turbines, solar and/or batteries that provide reliable, safe and cheap energy without polluting the local air and environment like fossil fuel energy sources do. Hosting renewable energy is also an opportunity for land owners to have a diversified, drought-proof source of income. Working together on solutions beats negative fear campaigns every time.

Amy Hiller, Kew

'That time again', yes, the last continuing extended daylight saving weeks and as of now, even though I live only 5mins car drive from the ocean; (so, early sunrise and as we live 15mins north of Byron Bay known for the first rays of the sunrise), lights have to be on to 6.40am and of course later time as we head into winter so for morning lights to be on to 7am or later if cloudy.

This causes an incredible issue with being able to 'get going' each day as is known and experienced by so many people who were totally ignored by politicians (except a few - two being Kevin Anderson and Adam Marshall) who put up a great battle for all the people who suffer under the so-called 'daylight saving' that is a curse to sleep problems and health issues but as it is worshiped - the best thing since sliced bread as the saying goes, people continue suffering in silence.

Looking back on the massive factual evidence against 'daylight saving', I wrote on a page: Stop the politics ACCEPT HEALTH FACTS - then I read the paragraph headed: What should we do? What do scientists recommend? - so following is their statement:

The choice of DST is political and therefore can be changed. If we want to improve human health, we should not fight against our body clock, and therefore, we should abandon DST and return to Standard Time (which is when the sun clock time most closely matches the social clock time) throughout the year. This solution would fix both the acute and the chronic problems of DST. We therefore strongly support removing DST changes or removing permanent DST and having governing organisations choose permanent Standard Time for the health and safety of their citizens.

Jillian Spring, Billinudgel

Peter Dutton will announce his nuclear power plan before the 2025 election. That's good. People need to know where these large-scale reactors and the waste would go, how we source the enriched fuel, how much they cost etc. But more importantly, whether we have time. Former chief scientist Alan Finkel said we might be able to do it by the 2040s but by then nuclear power in Australia "won't be needed" because we'd be operating with renewables, batteries and gas backup... existing and far cheaper technologies.

Mr Dutton and his climate change and energy spokesman Ted O'Brien have said large-scale reactors will replace coal-fired power stations, but have they asked the people who live there who have had to put up with the health risks and pollution of coal for decades?

And the so-called small modular reactors, not yet up and running anywhere, are likely to be placed in regional areas. They would need extensive community consultation, and transmission lines.

Furthermore, there's the nuclear waste problem. Despite having nuclear power for over sixty years, the US has been unable to agree on the location of a site for the storage of high-level nuclear waste from its reactors. It's 85,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel was initially stored in steel-lined concrete pools surrounded by water and is now in ageing storage casks. What is the Coalition's radioactive waste plan, what will it cost and where will the waste be stored? It will be an interesting read.

Ray Peck, Hawthorn