THE City of Kalamunda’s tree canopy policy is again under the spotlight, with residents urging stronger protections against large-scale clearing on residential land.

Kalamunda resident Hannah Lill said she and others wanted clarity on why the city’s previous tree policy was repealed and whether the draft replacement policy adequately addressed those issues.

“On behalf of a number of community members who feel strongly about this, we’re still trying to understand the issues from the last policy that necessitated the sort of far-reaching exemption for residential use land,” she said.

“Residential blocks are particularly where it breaks my heart when I see the land getting absolutely flattened.

“I’ve reviewed the meeting where it was repealed… it seems like there’s a lot of misinformation in this space.”

Ms Lill asked if the city could publish a detailed list of the tangible issues that led to the previous policy’s repeal, saying misinformation and confusion had clouded past debates.

She also raised concerns about the $1000 tree removal offset fee proposed under the new draft policy.

Ms Lill asked whether the fee truly covered the cost of planting and maintaining a new tree until canopy maturity, or whether the gap would fall back on ratepayers.

“It would still be really helpful to know the cost of establishing a tree,” she said.

“If we allow removal of an established tree then we get $1000.

“But residents have to maintain that tree.

“The watering, planting, staking and all that, from a ratepayer persceptive and with the budget in the situation that it’s in, it would  be very good to know that charge was representative of the cost you were going to incur to establish that tree.”

Ms Lill also provided recent examples of blocks in her neighbourhood where mature trees had been cleared, asking whether the new future forest policy would have provided stronger safeguards.

She withheld addresses for privacy but offered to share them with officers directly.

City of Kalamunda development services director Nathan Ritchie said he was happy to meet with Ms Lill to discuss the matters raised during question time.

“I think it’s probably fruitful particularly if you are looking to put a submission in during this time period and we encourage that,” he said.

“The more information we can provide you the richer that submission can be.

“With respect to the budgetary matters I’ll have to take that on board.

“The principles that sat around that was the methodology that was used under the previous policy, while notably sound and had been used in other places and had been adopted for that policy, it was felt that it was having too much of an impact on land owners.

“About offsetting the long-term value of that tree and the nominal amount that’s been put forward through this was seen as a more appropriate measure.

“But that’s subject to consultation and a future decision of council to make sure that that’s an appropriate figure that’s going to meet the needs of ensuring the trees are in the right locations in the future while recognising that there’s still a need for growth and development within the city.”

Mr Ritchie said he would take Ms Lill’s question about whether the draft future forest policy would have had a better outcome for examples in her area where the ‘home in the forest’ characteristic was, in her view, not being protected by current policy.