Tree advocates dismayed as Melville council backtracks on canopy protection

Melville tree protection plans in doubt as council meeting weighs options Tue 16 Jun 2026 at 9:30am In short: Melville councillors will debate whether to put out to public comment a policy that would give it the power to protect significant trees on private land. An alternative policy, which would exempt tree removals from planning policy, is also up for debate. What's next? The council will vote on Tuesday night to decide which policy to put out to public comment. The City of Melville, on the Swan River's south banks, is set to decide whether to press ahead with a policy that could protect significant trees on private property, or an alternative policy that would exempt owners from having to apply for development approval for tree removal. A number of Perth local councils have adopted tree-protection measures in recent years to protect the urban tree canopy, the smallest of any Australian capital city. This year, the Town of Bassendean was successful in preventing a property owner, who appealed to the State Administrative Tribunal, from removing a 26-metre rose gum tree from his land. The City of Melville council will this week debate which of two tree policy options it will put out for public comment. A community engagement survey in December 2024 indicated 63 per cent of Melville residents supported a local planning policy with a focus on retaining trees. "There are two motions — one is to have a tree policy go out to public comment," Melville Mayor Katy Mair told Nadia Mitsopoulos on 102.5 ABC Radio Perth. "The alternative motion is a policy not to regulate trees on private property, [which would] go out to public comment also. "One way or the other, the public are going to get an opportunity to actually comment." Fraught issue She said Melville councillors were hearing a great deal from both sides of the debate. "Of course, trees add value to property. It reduces the need for air-conditioning and so on; encourages birds. There's lots of arguments for and against," she said. "The councillors are a little bit betwixt and between because they're getting feedback from both sides, the tree advocacy people, as well as the people who are angry about having trees regulated on private property. "What's happening now — because people are worried about a policy going through to protect trees on private property — they are removing them now because they are very concerned about it." Cr Mair said there was also a tension between tree protection policies and state government infill targets, which required councils to increase housing density within their boundaries, developments that often required tree removal. She said the council was also coming under fire for seeking to regulate trees on private land, while not doing the same on verges. "We don't have a tree policy that is compulsory trees on verges, and that's also creating a bit of an issue for councillors too," she said. "We don't put a tree on the verge if somebody doesn't want one, so that's probably got to be addressed as well." Advocates call for 'amenity protection' Melville Tree Canopy Advocates group member Esther Cole said she was disappointed that Melville appeared to be backtracking on its original proposed amendments to local planning policy. "They've actually written a policy that was going to go to further community consultation, if passed, which would have helped to protect some trees on private property under certain circumstances," Ms Cole said. "This policy would have not stopped people putting in pools, doing renos, building, subdividing their blocks." Ms Cole rejected arguments that home owners should have the freedom to decide for themselves what trees to keep on their property. "Owning a property has never meant being able to do absolutely what you want,"she said. "We already accept that there are rules about what can be built, where it can be built, how high it can be built, whether a building can be demolished. "We do that because we want our amenity protected in the community." A number of listeners to 102.5 ABC Radio Perth agreed trees needed further protection in Melville. Jackie: "I'd like to see incentives being offered to help home owners keep the trees, such as yearly arborist inspections, or a reduction in rates. Large trees take decades to grow and give us shade and are habitat for our wildlife. We need to be doing much more to preserve them." David, Mount Pleasant: "Protection of significant trees on private land is the only way we won't keep going backwards on canopy and retain the value of our properties. The city used to have so many trees, but this canopy has been decimated in the 20+ years I have lived here. It's heartbreaking." Douglas, Attadale: "A frangipani in pot and a row of decorative grasses is not going to cool a suburb or provide a habitat for anything. Sections of leafy suburbs are disappearing like losing pieces of a jigsaw." But others said they wanted the freedom to decide what was right for them. Emma: "We had about eight mature trees on our block in City of Melville — we removed three as the roots were pushing up our driveway and retaining walls, they were very close to the house and hung over. The roots are all through our (old) plumbing. We removed them last year with the anticipation of these new laws tying our hands. We LOVE the remaining trees on our block, but the ones we removed were just nightmares, and we should have the freedom to decide that." Ms Mair said she believed there were other ways the council could work to support tree retention. "I understand that there's an opportunity, through the planning process, to offer incentives for people to keep trees when they're doing development applications, so there are a lot of opportunities either way to preserve trees," she said.