Melville council advertises new tree planning policy to regulate trees on private property

Privately owned trees in the City of Melville could be more strictly protected under a new local planning policy.

The draft policy was presented at Tuesday’s council meeting. It follows the Local Government Association of WA format and aims to keep more trees across the city and protect the urban canopy.

Council members voted 6-5 to make the tree policy public. The results of the public consultation will be presented to the council for final evaluation and acceptance.

As part of the policy, planning approval will be required for any resident who causes “tree damaging activity” against a regulated tree.

Regulated trees are trees with a height of at least 8 m, an average canopy diameter of at least 6 m or a trunk circumference of at least 1.5 m. This also includes trees that need to be planted to compensate for tree loss from construction.

Activities that damage trees include activities within the scope of planning and zoning regulations, such as removing trees, cutting large branches and causing root damage.

Exemption may be granted if the tree is a palm, cypress or fruit tree, or if the damage is deemed “urgently necessary” for public safety or protection of property.

The draft policy has created excitement among the local community and councillors; Some wanted to preserve mature trees at all costs, while others questioned the government’s “excessive interference” by regulating activities on private property.

Cr Michael McGoldrick tabled an alternative motion to the council, arguing that the officer had not followed the advice to approve the policy. lost 5-6.

“We all wholeheartedly agree that trees are beneficial in providing cooling shade as well as encouraging animal life. But I have listened to the community and their message is clear; they do not agree that trees on privately owned land should be regulated by the council,” he said.

“This is unfair to families, it is unreasonable to expect taxpayers to fund the implementation of this policy and thirdly it is unnecessary as we already have a sound planning policy that promotes sustainable development.”

The new policy will require additional council resources, including two full-time staff, costing around $200,000 each year.

Cr Nicole Robins suggested it would be hypocritical for the city to regulate private trees, given councilors voted against mandatory tree planting in December last year.

“On the one hand, it’s a complete double standard for us to say that we’re not going to use our land — municipal boundaries — to increase urban canopy, but instead… we’re going to expect you to do that with your own land,” he said.

Cr Karen Wheatland expressed concerns about the waste of time and extra costs of not supporting the officer’s recommendation to advertise a policy that has taken significant resources to draft.

“Tonight’s decision isn’t about whether landowners will have to go and fight for their trees on their property; it’s about advertising the draft policy we’ve been working on for some time based on community feedback,” he said.

“It will give the community an opportunity to have their say on this.”

Cr Scott Green stressed that the council was not voting on personal views, but merely offering the opportunity to publicize the policy and find a solution.

“We need to accept that the officer’s advice on the proposed policy is an accurate reflection of the discussions we have already had, the feedback we have received and the process we have followed to date,” he said.

The proposed policy will now be published for public feedback.