Source : Perth Now news
Privately owned trees in the City of Melville could be more strictly protected by a new local planning policy.
The draft policy was presented at Tuesday’s council meeting. It follows a WA Local Government Association format and aims to retain more trees across the city and protect urban canopy.
Councillors voted 6-5 to send the tree policy out for public advertising. The results from a public consultation will be presented to the council for final consideration and adoption.
As part of the policy, development approval would be required for any resident causing “tree damaging activity” to a regulated tree.
Regulated trees are those that are at least 8m high, have an average canopy diameter of at least 6m or a trunk circumference of at least 1.5m. This also includes trees that were required to be planted as replacements to offset tree loss from developments.
Tree damaging activities include works under the planning and development regulations, such as removing trees, lopping large branches and causing root damage.
Exemptions may be granted if the tree is a palm tree, cypress tree or fruit tree, or if the damage is deemed “urgently necessary” for public safety or protection of property.
The draft policy has caused a stir across the local community and councillors, with some wanting to protect mature trees at all costs, and others questioning government “overreach” by regulating activity on private property.
Cr Michael McGoldrick presented an alternative motion to council suggesting it did not proceed with the officer’s recommendation to endorse the policy. It was lost 5-6.
“We all wholeheartedly agree with the benefits of trees for a cooling canopy as well as encouraging animal life. However, I’ve listened to the community and their message is clear – they do not agree with council regulating trees on privately owned land,” he said.
“It’s unfair to families, it’s unreasonable to expect ratepayers to fund implementing this policy, and thirdly it’s unnecessary because we already have a sound planning policy that encourages sustainable development.”
The new policy would require additional council resources, including two full-time staff costing about $200,000 each year.
Cr Nicole Robins suggested it would be hypocritical for the city to regulate private trees, given councillors voted against planting mandatory verge trees in December last year.
“It’s a complete double standard for us to say on one hand, that we’re not going to use our land – council verges – to increase urban canopy, but we will instead … expect you to do it with yours,” she said.
Cr Karen Wheatland raised concerns about time wasting and the extra costs associated with not supporting the officer’s recommendation to advertise a policy that had taken significant resources to draft.
“The decision tonight is not about whether or not landowners will have to go and fight for their trees on their property, this is about advertising the draft policy we’ve worked on for some time based on community feedback,” she said.
“It will give the community the opportunity to give their views on that.”
Cr Scott Green emphasised the council was not voting on personal views, but simply the opportunity to advertise the policy to the public and come up with a solution.
“We need to acknowledge the officer’s recommendation for the proposed policy is an accurate reflection of the discussions we’ve already had, the feedback we’ve received and the process we’ve followed so far,” he said.
The recommended policy will now be released for public feedback.
