\u201cThe South Perth foreshore is 62 hectares \u2013 there are so many other areas where planting trees which would grow to such heights would not cause such discourse,\u201d Coveney said.<\/p>\n
Loading<\/p>\n
\u201cThis motion finds a middle ground in protecting significant views, promoting wildlife and promoting urban greening, whilst giving council a pathway to deal with these sorts of issues moving forward by establishing a clear policy to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said the process, including removing the trees and replanting them, would cost around $30,000.<\/p>\n
Mayor Greg Milner said he thought motions like this were a bad idea and short-sighted.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey tend to be a little bit reactive, a little bit knee-jerk, and quite often for the benefit of a fairly small number of people,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this case, Councillor Coveney tells us that he\u2019s been contacted by over a dozen residents on Jubilee Street.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t doubt that those dozen Jubilee street residents are genuinely concerned about the preservation of their views and what effect those six trees might have on their views.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut I do note that we\u2019ve all received correspondence from many, many, many other residents \u2013 we\u2019ve even received correspondence from other residents who also live in Jubilee Street \u2013 asking us to retain the trees.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis issue goes well beyond Jubilee Street, we all have a duty to act in the best long-term interests of our community as a whole.\u201d<\/p>\n
Milner also expressed concerns over setting a precedent that the council would remove any trees requested by the community.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we pass this motion, we will be forced down one of two fairly unpleasant paths. The first path is that we continue to remove trees every time someone asks us to do that.<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, I\u2019m sorry I\u2019m not going to support that.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe second path is that we remove trees for some people, but we don\u2019t remove trees for others, and that\u2019s going to be kind of hard for us to justify in terms of consistent decision-making.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis, at least to me, is a pretty clear case where, objectively assessed, the interests of the many quite obviously outweigh the interests of the few. I\u2019m voting against this notice of motion.\u201d<\/p>\n
Coveney\u2019s motion was then put to a vote, and was carried four votes to three.<\/p>\n
A decision on when the trees will be removed, and where replacement greenery will be planted, is yet to be made.<\/p>\n
South Perth Tree Canopy Advocates spokesperson Bronwyn David said she was \u201csad and disappointed\u201d by the decision but \u201cnot that surprised\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m tired of having to fight these ridiculous battles,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s very sad to think that the interests of a few will result in the probable death of six trees.\u201d<\/p>\n
She said it was attitudes of residents and councils like this that had contributed to Perth having the lowest tree canopy cover out of any capital city nationally.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe vast majority of South Perth residents are supportive of trees and I hope that vast majority would not sacrifice the environment for their own self-interest,\u201d David said.<\/p>\n