DURING public question time at the City of Swan’s most recent ordinary council meeting, the city’s seriousness about protecting trees was scrutinised by community members.

Ballajura resident Viola Marrapodi appeared in council to ask about the 10 trees that were removed along Alexander Drive as reported in Trees felled on Alexander Drive were approved: Swan.

City of Swan statutory planning manager Philip Russell assured Ms Marrapodi that approvals were given and Fairway were not in breach by removing the trees along the street despite being planted by the city.

“The trees were not protected by any planning mechanism or planning provision that required them to be retained,” he said.

“The developer applied lawfully for their removal and was granted consent.

“We understand that aggrieves some in the community understandably, they were large trees and mature, but there’s been no offense.”

Ms Marrapodi asked the city if they would demand the developer of Paradise Quays replace the trees that were destroyed.

Mr Russell said he was pleased to say the developer had expressed they would oblige.

“The city is open to work with Mr Burke for appropriate species of replanted trees in appropriate locations,” he said.

“Whilst some might view that that won’t replace that which was lost, it can go some way towards reinstating some mature trees within the site.”

Guildford Association member Christine Hughes also asked why 10 trees were removed in Guildford a few months ago and asked for the rationale behind a retrospective development approval.

Mr Russell replied and said it was important to be specific about terms used such as retrospective development approval and that the city did prosecute breaches as ordinary for a local government.

“The position that the city has had with respect to when to prosecute for breaches of the scheme is a long-held position and one I’m pleased to say is at the foundation of reasonable local government in Western Australia,” he said.

Speaking to Echo News after the meeting, Ms Hughes said her concern was not limited to the removal of individual trees but what she viewed as a broader question around the use of retrospective development applications after protected trees had already been removed.

Ms Hughes said she wanted to understand what authority or guidelines were relied upon when a retrospective application was invited rather than other compliance or enforcement options being pursued.

She argued that once a mature tree had been removed, the original asset could not be restored and questioned whether retrospective approvals weakened the intent of existing tree protection measures.

Ms Hughes said she believed the issue would become increasingly important as the city progressed work on a proposed significant tree register, which is intended to identify and recognise trees of particular environmental, historical or community value.

She also questioned whether the focus on native species alone adequately reflected the value of long-established trees in urban areas, citing mature sugar gums and Moreton Bay figs as examples of significant trees that contributed to canopy cover and local character despite not being native to Western Australia.

Ms Hughes pointed to differences in tree canopy across the city, saying established suburbs such as Guildford and Woodbridge retained comparatively high levels of canopy cover while newer suburbs such as Dayton and Ellenbrook had significantly less.

“I think we have both a state and a national commitment to urban canopy protection,” she said.

“Either we’re serious about it or we’re not.”