The City of Melville is considering a new local planning policy that would impose stricter protections on privately owned trees. The draft policy, presented at Tuesday's council meeting, follows a WA Local Government Association format and aims to retain more trees and protect urban canopy across the city.
Council Vote Sends Policy for Public Advertising
Councillors voted 6-5 to send the tree policy out for public advertising. Following public consultation, results will be presented to the council for final consideration and adoption. The policy would require development approval for any "tree damaging activity" on regulated trees.
Regulated trees are defined as those at least 8m high, with an average canopy diameter of at least 6m or a trunk circumference of at least 1.5m. This also includes replacement trees planted to offset development-related tree loss. Tree damaging activities include removal, lopping large branches, and causing root damage.
Exemptions and Community Concerns
Exemptions may be granted for palm, cypress, or fruit trees, or if damage is deemed "urgently necessary" for public safety or property protection. The draft policy has stirred community debate, with some advocating for mature tree protection and others questioning government "overreach" on private property.
Cr Michael McGoldrick proposed an alternative motion not to endorse the policy, which 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. He cited unfairness to families, unreasonable costs for ratepayers, and existing planning policies encouraging sustainable development.
The new policy would require additional council resources, including two full-time staff costing about $200,000 each year.
Criticism of Double Standards
Cr Nicole Robins highlighted hypocrisy, noting that council 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 and costs of not supporting the officer’s recommendation to advertise the policy. "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 emphasized the vote was not on personal views but on allowing public input. "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.
