CITY REVISITS TOOTHLESS TREE REGISTER

ELECTED members called on the City of Fremantle last night to scrap its toothless significant tree register and find out whether the 135-year-old Moreton Bay at 195 High Street is infected with beetle borer.
In a clear push back to the City’s recommendation and East ward councillor Fedele Camarda’s amendment to re-run the flawed registration process, coastal ward councillor Andrew Sullivan said: “I think that’s nuts.”
Cr Sullivan said the register whose “insipid list” includes only a few trees was unfit for purpose and, “the process would probably fail a legal test”, the City having conducted a review (not disclosed) into why it did not seek permission when it placed the fig tree on its significant register in 2018 without notifying property owners, the Cattalini family.
Silverleaf’s Gerard O’Brien also weighed in during question time when he warned the City it would scare away developers who did not like such changes to the rules: “I am concerned, there have been a lot of developers who have rang me and said how are you going in Fremantle with what’s happening with this tree. And it does scare us, it scares me because I want this Fremantle place to move forward as well. So we have to take this off the agenda and find a way.
“We found a way in Kings Square to remove half a dozen trees, large trees larger than this, to make it happen. but we did it for the benefit to get this (council) building here today.”
Mr O’Brien said he was aware of a couple of his trees at 45 Henderson Street proposed to be put on the register: “I had a good look at them today and the trees are of no significance at all. So I’d like someone to please have another look at it.”
The Cattalini family which is trying to sell its 2035ha property said the City was effectively turning away potential developers, that Fremantle was, “closed for business”.
Central ward councillor Geoff Graham said the process should be revisited after six months to see whether there was a, “rush of people coming in with their trees to put on the register”. Coastal ward councillor Jemima Williamson-Wong hoped 10 times more trees could be added to the City tree register.
Cr Graham said: “It’s everyone’s fundamental right who owns property to have a say in what happens on their property. We don’t even know how to define culturally significant trees. I can’t support any of it.”
According to City ward councillor Adin Lang, it may not matter as seven trees across the road from 195 High Street were infected with shot-hole borer, as first reported by StreetWise on April 10: “It pains me to say this but perhaps the most logical action and next step in this chapter of the tree is to invite the department to inspect the tree to see if it actually is infected. There is no point continuing ongoing legal battles over something that may already have been infected by shot-hole borer.”
Cr Camarda agreed with Cr Sullivan, the process “is a shemozzle” but said it was no longer about just one tree and acknowledged the problem was including significant trees and vegetation areas on private property.
Cr Sullivan said: “The reality of our list and the reality of virtually any list in WA, it ultimately comes down to the good will of the person who owns that tree. The processes would probably fail a legal test.”
Preferring to wipe the slate clean, CEO Glen Dougall said, “the previous process had some doubt around it and the fact we haven’t being able to demonstrate that we contacted occupiers of the various properties as required by the scheme”. He said the officer’s report is, “about going back and trying to deliver the original intent of council in 2018”.
Mr O’Brien said the City’s handling of the issue was not good publicity, “and would be really bad for the development industry in Fremantle because people judge us by this. People get scared when the rules change, it’s hard enough to do heritage, hard enough to get developers here. Add this to it and you are making it really tough. You will lose a lot of people”.
Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge dismissed the ‘dampening’ effect Mr O’Brien eluded to and referred to NSW where land owners need planning approval, “to remove any tree unless it is dead or a pest. Any tree on any property at any time”.
She said as with heritage properties, “we consult the owners of a heritage property but we don’t necessarily allow them the final decision making authority about whether it goes on a heritage list or not”.
Ideally, in her world, she said: “Heritage trees would be treated the same as heritage property, they’d be assessed for their heritage value and kept on a heritage list through the heritage system.”
Danielle Cattalini said it was unfortunate administrative errors now created doubt in the business community: “It is unlikely the significant tree registrations are lawfully valid. There is no mechanism in the scheme that allows council to transfer trees from the heritage list to the tree register. It is absolutely NOT reasonable to completely disregard a lawfully adopted local planning policy.”
She said the register was potentially discriminatory: “Your decision tonight is more than about trees on a register. It’s how the council is seen when it initiates and carries out procedures. This is an opportunity to show you are leaders, be brave and demonstrate you can be trusted and not throw out your policy when it does not suit you. If the council is genuine in moving forward and saving valuable time it must strongly consider a resolution to include landowner permission prior to inclusion on a tree register.”
Additional stories at www.streetwisemedia.com.au and in the latest edition of Freo StreetWise.