The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) has dismissed a Bassendean homeowner's appeal to cut down a towering rose gum tree on his property, upholding the local council's decision to protect the regulated tree.
Background of the Case
Kevin Nee, a resident of Geraldine Street, sought SAT review after the Town of Bassendean rejected his application to remove the rose gum tree in August. The tree, standing approximately 26 meters high with a canopy spread of up to 18 meters and a trunk circumference of 97.7 centimeters, is classified as a regulated tree under the town's local laws. Consequently, any works that could affect it require council approval.
The council argued that the tree contributes positively to the character, amenity, and sense of place of the locality. Its removal would be inconsistent with the town's tree retention policy. The council also dismissed claims that the tree posed a risk to people, property, or infrastructure, or that it hindered the development potential of the land.
Appeal and SAT Hearing
Mr. Nee had already begun removal works but halted upon realizing he needed approval. He requested SAT to review the council's decision in October. The hearing took place on March 16, with the decision released this month.
SAT member Ross Povey visited the site on the morning of the review to inspect the tree firsthand. He noted that the evidence presented by Mr. Nee to justify removal carried "little weight." This evidence included a plumber's quote, a letter from an arborist, and a letter from a neighbor alleging damage caused by the tree.
According to Mr. Povey, Mr. Nee claimed the tree's roots blocked his sewer system, requiring pipe replacement, and caused damage to a pool fence, shed, garage, and house roof. He also raised safety concerns about falling limbs. However, neither the neighbor nor the arborist attended the hearing to give evidence or be cross-examined.
Mr. Nee also argued that his proposed subdivision had been approved, but the WA Planning Commission had not yet made a decision. He cited the recent Zorzi V Town of Cambridge case to challenge planning controls, but when asked to specify which parts of that decision supported his case, he could not. SAT found the Zorzi case inapplicable.
Expert Evidence
The town's arborist, Mark Short, attended the hearing and provided oral evidence supporting his written statement. He assessed the tree as being in fair health with normal structure for its species and a life expectancy exceeding 40 years. Mr. Povey found Short a credible and reliable expert witness, preferring his evidence and giving it significant weight in the decision.
Council's Response
Bassendean Mayor Kathryn Hamilton welcomed the decision, stating it reinforced the town's commitment to protecting regulated trees and the importance of its tree retention policy in safeguarding urban canopy. "It is an important outcome not only for the town but for local governments across WA seeking to protect significant trees on private property," she said.
Hamilton emphasized that the policy balances development with tree protection, encouraging thoughtful design that preserves regulated trees where possible. "By balancing growth with the protection of valuable tree canopy, the policy helps create greener, cooler and more liveable communities for current and future generations," she added.
Related Case
In a separate, unrelated decision from November 2025, the town secured its first prosecution for unauthorized removal of regulated trees. The court imposed a $17,000 penalty and ordered the defendant to pay legal costs, noting the individual was aware of the approval requirement but proceeded regardless.
