Fig tree family calls out City on rotten policy
MEMBERS of the Cattalini family tonight put the City of Fremantle on notice that it did not give council consent nor was it consulted when it listed a 135-year-old fig tree on its significant tree register in 2019.
The owners of 195 High Street also confirmed with city staff that a number of trees in the park across the road at the corner of High and Parry streets were infected with the dreaded beetle borer, Polyphagous, and would be removed within the next few weeks.
Stacey Cattalini started public question time criticising delays in answers and results of what the CEO described as a “thorough investigation” into whether the owner or occupier were sent notifications and consulted over placing the Moreton Bay on the new tree register.
Ms Cattalini said the city had answered only one of eight questions the family asked at the previous council meeting (see below) confirming the tree was listed under local planning policy 2.23 (LPP2.23) which describes the procedure for including trees or vegetation area on the register under Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4).
It states: “The City will not accept an application for a significant tree or vegetation area to be included on the register without the landowner’s consent.”
As reported by StreetWise, Ms Cattalini said there was no record of correspondence they supposedly received regarding the initial proposal to list the tree, “and as we have investigated it is also known the occupiers of 195 High Street were not notified regarding the proposed listing of the fig tree as was required by LPS4”.
She also asked why the city when asked about whether the occupiers were notified was able to provide letters sent to landowners, but not the occupiers.
CEO Glen Dougall said the family would receive the results of its investigation by Friday. He said the City would pull the letters it sent in 2019 to check whether they were sent to the owner or occupier, and who gave permission or nominated the tree for inclusion.
Danielle Cattalini said the City contrary to LPP2.23 placed the Moreton Bay on the register without the owner’s consent: “This consent was not given. Can you confirm you have received legal advice to suggest that the owner’s permission was not required?”
She added: “Although the general community support tree retention, as we do, many people are frightened council will impose unwanted and unrealistic restrictions on individual property owner’s rights.”
Outstanding & Responses
Council responses to questions by Tony Cattalini on March 13 include:
During a meeting with the Mayor, CEO and director of planning, director of planning stated the tree at 195 High Street had been placed on the significant tree register prior to the adoption of LPP2.23, meaning the condition to notify the owners and occupiers of the place where a tree is located was not applicable. Is the above statement by the director of planning correct?
Response: The fig tree was already identified on the Heritage List under the LPS4 prior to being placed on the significant tree register.
Can the Mayor advise by what mechanism the tree at 195 High Street was placed on the significant tree register prior to the adoption of LPP2.23 on the 27/02/2019?
Response: Prior to adoption of LPP2.23, Council had authority to seek planning protection / conservation for significant trees by placing them on the Heritage List, under the Local Planning Scheme. The Scheme also makes provision for the Council to place significant trees on a Register and it is through this mechanism that the Significant Tree Register was developed.
Local Planning Policy 2.23 Register of Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas was adopted by Council on 27 February 2019 that provided detailed guidelines for how newly nominated trees – by their owners – could also be considered for inclusion on the Register.
Can the Mayor advise if the community engagement carried out by the City through its officers or any other means with regards to LPP2.23 between 06/11/2018 and 04/12/2018 met all the requirements as prescribed in LPS4 Clause 13(A)?
Response: The City is currently investigating the process that was undertaken and remains of the opinion that the placement of the tree on the significant tree register remains valid.
Can the Mayor advise if all the occupiers of 195 High Street were contacted by the City through its officers or any other means as prescribed in LPS4 clause 13(a) during the community engagement for LPP2.23 carried out between 06/11/2018 and 04/12/2018?
Response: As per the response to question 4, the process that was undertaken is currently being reviewed.
If the Mayor can confirm that all occupiers were contacted by the City through its officers or any other means as per question 5, can the Mayor provide evidence confirming the contact?
Response: As per the response to question 5, a copy of the letter, distributed by mail merge to property owners, was provided to you via email and can be provided again upon request.
Can the Mayor please advise if the occupiers of 195 High Street were given notice by the City through its Officers or any other means of the adoption of resolution SPD1902-3 as passed on 27/02/2019?
Response: A letter dated 14 March 2019, advising property owners of the Council resolution dated 27 February 2019. As per the response to question 4, the process that was undertaken is currently being reviewed.
If the Mayor can confirm that all the occupiers were given notice as per question 7? Can the Mayor provided evidence confirming the contact?
Response: As per the response to question 7, a copy of the letter, distributed by mail merge to property owners, was provided to you via email and can be provided again upon request.
Additional fig tree stories at www.streetwisemedia.com.au.
