South Perth council reaffirm controversial decision to remove six trees blocking ‘multimillion-dollar’ views

The fight to retain six juvenile trees on the South Perth foreshore claimed to block “multimillion-dollar” views has been unsuccessful. The City of South Perth council voted on Tuesday night on Cr Jennifer Nevard’s revocation motion, which called on her colleagues to reconsider their July decision to approve the removal of the six trees at Lake Douglas. The vote required an absolute majority, and with the two Mill Point ward seats remaining vacant until local government elections in October, five of the remaining seven elected members needed to vote in favour to retain the trees. Mayor Greg Milner and councillors Andre Brender-A-Brandis and Nevard voted in favour of the motion, however deputy mayor Bronwyn Waugh and councillors Blake D’Souza, Glenn Cridland and Hayley Prendiville voted against, the motion failing 3-4. Cr Nevard warned of how the council would be viewed if it did not support retaining the trees. “It’s a dangerous practice as it looks like grace and favour, and that is definitely where we want to steer away from very, very carefully,” she said. “That’s the prime concern I have on this. People being advantaged or disadvantaged financially is a very dangerous way to move and for that reason I implore you to think carefully.” Mr Milner said his views had not changed since he spoke at last month’s council meeting. “What value do we place on our own strategic and governance documents?” he said. “We, meaning the elected members, are not the experts in the room on these issues. “It’s a matter of fact that city officers very often have knowledge and experience that we do not and that’s exactly why they are paid to advise us, and we should be wise and listen.” Ms Waugh spoke against the motion, stating that the original decision aligned with endorsed both the 2001 and 2015 Foreshore management plans, which were developed jointly by the State Government, Swan River trust and the City. “They are the documents that our community expect us to reasonably follow,” she said. “On my reading, the six saplings at this specific location are not identified in those plans, whereas sedge planting at this node is consistent with the objectives for node seven in the 2015 plan. “Until those plans are amended through proper consultation and the appropriate State partnership, the city ought not to unilaterally rewrite them ad hoc. “I have taken independent advice that 135sqm of sedge delivers greater ecological benefit than the six saplings. None of that is anti tree, its simply the right treatment in that location. “This is not a loss of canopy, it is a relocation of canopy in a more appropriate place.” Cr Cridland said that he recalled Cr Nevard being “heavily involved” in a petition to stop a cafe going in front of her house. “I can remember we were going to plant some trees (at Minderup) and Mayor Milner was very against any big trees down there,” he added. “So I guess there are views and views, a bit of an Animal Farm thing: some views are more equal than others.” At the council meeting in July, the same councillors and former councillor Nicholas Coveney voted to remove the trees, investigate a location in the vicinity of Lake Douglas to plant “low level planting”, budget $30,000 to cover removal and prepare new planting, and to host a workshop to develop a policy on planting trees on public land. It was carried 4-3. The initial motion to remove the trees was put forward by then Mill Point ward Cr Coveney in July. In Cr Nevard’s reason for revocation, she said replacing the trees with “lower growth foliage” may contribute to overall biodiversity but it would not offer the canopy cover. “Reflecting its predominantly residential and commercial character, City of South Perth comprises mainly private land,” she said. “There is a certain irony in the rigour with which canopy cover is defended in the public space yet lack of foliage cover and lack of biodiversity in the private space lags much further behind.” She said that it was a “complex issue” and that the council needed time to consider the impacts of this decision-making process for the long term.