Gardening is a beloved pastime for many Australians, offering a chance to cultivate beauty, enjoy the outdoors, and even provide a source of fresh produce. However, for green-thumbed residents in certain areas, a common gardening activity could soon land them in hot water if they're not careful.

In the Perth suburb of Bassendean, located in the city's northeast, a new proposal is stirring up the soil in the community. The local council is considering a policy that would require homeowners to obtain a permit before trimming or modifying large trees on their property. This move is part of an effort to increase the area's canopy coverage to an ambitious 30 percent, as part of a broader 'greening' initiative.

The Town of Bassendean council had previously attempted to introduce a requirement for development approval to remove mature trees on private land in February of this year. However, the WA Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage initially rejected this proposal, stating that only trees on the town’s significant tree register would need council approval. In a surprising turn of events, the department reversed its decision in April, allowing the council to propose once again that unauthorized tree removal or modification be considered an offence.

Residents of Bassendean in Perth may soon need council approval to prune or remove large trees to meet canopy coverage targets. Credit: Shutterstock

Under the newly proposed policy, any work or development that could impact trees exceeding eight meters in height or with a canopy at least six meters wide would need council approval, unless the trees are classified as weeds. The policy aims to ensure that 'a regulated tree must be retained in perpetuity and protected,' unless its removal is essential for safety, bushfire management, or if it's listed as an unwanted species. Maintenance pruning, which involves trimming less than 10 percent of the canopy and not removing limbs thicker than 10 centimeters, would not require approval.

The proposed policy also outlines that improving property views, excessive leaf drop, or simply disliking a tree are not valid reasons for cutting it down. Bassendean Mayor Kath Hamilton has expressed that the policy reflects the council's dedication to preserving the area's natural charm and balancing development with environmental sustainability.

Residents are being encouraged to share their thoughts on the matter, and the council is expected to provide further details on the next steps and potential fines for non-compliance.

This initiative in Bassendean is part of a larger trend across Australia, where state and local governments are setting canopy targets to combat the effects of climate change and urbanization. For instance, in New South Wales, the government has a goal to increase tree canopy cover in Greater Sydney to 40 percent, up from the current 22 percent.

The push for greener cities is commendable, but it also raises questions about individual property rights and the responsibilities of homeowners. As Australians, we value our lush landscapes and understand the importance of trees in urban environments for providing shade, improving air quality, and supporting biodiversity. Yet, the prospect of fines for what many consider routine yard maintenance has left some wondering where the line should be drawn between private property management and public environmental goals.

For our readers, particularly those with a green thumb, it's essential to stay informed about local regulations and participate in community discussions regarding such policies. If you're unsure about the rules in your area, it's always best to check with your local council before undertaking significant gardening or landscaping projects.

Key Takeaways

• Residents of the Perth suburb of Bassendean may soon need council approval to prune or remove large trees from their gardens to meet canopy coverage targets.
• The Town of Bassendean council's policy requires approval for work on trees over eight metres in height or with a canopy six meters wide, excluding certain circumstances like safety or bushfire management.
• Mayor Kath Hamilton emphasises the aim to preserve Bassendean's green, natural character while promoting environmental sustainability in development.
• The policy is part of a broader effort to increase tree canopy cover across Australia to mitigate climate change and the effects of urbanisation, with NSW aiming to increase its Greater Sydney canopy cover to 40%.

We'd love to hear from you, members of the Seniors Discount Club. Have you encountered similar regulations in your area? How do you balance your love of gardening with the need to preserve our urban canopy? Share your stories and thoughts in the comments below, and let's cultivate a conversation about the future of gardening in our communities.

 

[Ezzy]

My immediate concern would be for trees with limbs overhanging or in the vicinity of the home which could break off in a heavy wind & cause substantial damage or being completely uprooted & fall on the house as seen in tonight's news on the T.V. How would a claim for this be viewed by an Insurance Company?

 

[freedy50]

They're lucky they've got trees to trim. In my local area of NSW there's not a tree to be seen in anyone's garden.

 

[Ezzy]

They're lucky they've got trees to trim. In my local area of NSW there's not a tree to be seen in anyone's garden.

I am the reverse in W.A. in my area. Council street trees, people who plant trees on the boundary & never trim them & let them overhang the neighbour's property. My next door neighbour whose ex husband planted trees down the front property line did this. She got the message recently when l cut off the overhang & threw this back in front of the side gate, where the mowing contractor needed to get through (the only place available to me). She hired a tree man & cut them right back to start again.

 

[Suzanne rose]

In Sydney you already need council approval to trim or make changes to any large trees. The only trees you don't need permission to cut down are palm trees.

My neighbour paid someone to come and cut branches from a bottle brush tree as he said the leaves were dropping on his car. This was on a Saturday morning. An hour into the cutting a ranger came and fined him $3,000 . This was Canterbury Bankstown council

 

[Bullwinkle]

No doubt “there will be a charge” my property, my tree, it needs trimming it will be trimmed.
Hopefully S.A. Government, doesn’t see this or it will be implemented before our Health System is fixed

 

[BJM]

This process has been in place in Qld for many years

 

[Witty]

Love the idea. In our area which has a very high number of immigrants - they do not like large trees and cut them down, They do not like trees in the corner of their properties, have concrete instead of lawns. Wish Victoria would make all local councils keep an eye on large trees.

 

[mlou]

Though I'm an avid gardener & LOVE trees, I feel there definitely needs to be some wisdom used, in the planning of tree planting & accountability, for any damage etc, caused by the wrong trees planted or regulated to remain, in the wrong positions, by those plan & enforce the regulations thereof.

I too, am in a council that has the same regulations that require the homeowner to seek approval for any major trimming/removal needed of trees that we may have any concerns with.

Thankfully, I've been here long enough to have had the opportunity to remove trees, on my property, prior to the overlay restrictions being made. One large tree, despite being 8mtrs from my house, had a large root system that was seriously undermining my house foundations. I am also extremely grateful for the previous owner's wisdom in removing ALL the gum trees from the property, two of which 90-120cms in girth, at it's base (house was built in the '60's). I know this as he had left all the stumps (covered by bushes), which I also had removed at the same time of the remaining tree removal. Back then it was affordable... NOW, I'm told that it would cost at least $1,000 to remove 1 decent limb.

The thing is, I don't believe that large gums have a place in suburbia, unless they're on an extremely large block of land, with room to grow & NOT be a problem, which not many of us have the luxury of owning.

There can indeed be serious concerns, re our homes, be it the undermining of their foundations, via the tree root systems, or the damage when limbs, or the tree itself, fall due to weather conditions, disease or age, let alone the horror of having a limb falling on one of us or an innocent passerby. Then too, back to their roots systems, how many have seen the damage caused by their roots, to footpaths/walkways or driveways, which have caught quite a few unawares, also causing, at times, serious injury.

THE QUESTION IS.... WHO FOOTS THE BILL for such damage or personal liabilities?????? From what I've heard, thus far, it's extremely unlikely that the councils would, even though they feel they have the right to impose such restrictions onto us, the homeowners, or, make it hard to do anything, either through limitations of permit approvals or the cost thereof, on top of the costs of Arborists themselves.

 

[Ree]

Just another way for councils to make money from ratepayers. If the tree is diseased or has white ants or is dangerous to property or people (dropping branches), the tree owner should be allowed to trim, cut back or remove as the case requires.

 

[Jest]

any trees on the footpath belong to the council and I would just tell them to suck eggs. how bloody ridiculous.

 

[Jest]

Though I'm an avid gardener & LOVE trees, I feel there definitely needs to be some wisdom used, in the planning of tree planting & accountability, for any damage etc, caused by the wrong trees planted or regulated to remain, in the wrong positions, by those plan & enforce the regulations thereof.

I too, am in a council that has the same regulations that require the homeowner to seek approval for any major trimming/removal needed of trees that we may have any concerns with.

Thankfully, I've been here long enough to have had the opportunity to remove trees, on my property, prior to the overlay restrictions being made. One large tree, despite being 8mtrs from my house, had a large root system that was seriously undermining my house foundations. I am also extremely grateful for the previous owner's wisdom in removing ALL the gum trees from the property, two of which 90-120cms in girth, at it's base (house was built in the '60's). I know this as he had left all the stumps (covered by bushes), which I also had removed at the same time of the remaining tree removal. Back then it was affordable... NOW, I'm told that it would cost at least $1,000 to remove 1 decent limb.

The thing is, I don't believe that large gums have a place in suburbia, unless they're on an extremely large block of land, with room to grow & NOT be a problem, which not many of us have the luxury of owning.

There can indeed be serious concerns, re our homes, be it the undermining of their foundations, via the tree root systems, or the damage when limbs, or the tree itself, fall due to weather conditions, disease or age, let alone the horror of having a limb falling on one of us or an innocent passerby. Then too, back to their roots systems, how many have seen the damage caused by their roots, to footpaths/walkways or driveways, which have caught quite a few unawares, also causing, at times, serious injury.

THE QUESTION IS.... WHO FOOTS THE BILL for such damage or personal liabilities?????? From what I've heard, thus far, it's extremely unlikely that the councils would, even though they feel they have the right to impose such restrictions onto us, the homeowners, or, make it hard to do anything, either through limitations of permit approvals or the cost thereof, on top of the costs of Arborists themselves.

i came here a kiwi and in 1995 i became an aussie. I learnt from listening that trees did not get planted close to a house and what to plant and what not to plant. Now I figure that australians are nuts with what they plant. jacandas next to a house for one.

 

[Jest]

This process has been in place in Qld for many years

well, as queenslanders we cut back trees to suit us. not once have i heard of a rule with councils. if they like to pay for it i am happy to oblige. they do pay half of some tree removals. i have experienced that.

 

[Suzanne rose]

They're lucky they've got trees to trim. In my local area of NSW there's not a tree to be seen in anyone's garden.

Are you in one of the new areas

 

[Suzanne rose]

i came here a kiwi and in 1995 i became an aussie. I learnt from listening that trees did not get planted close to a house and what to plant and what not to plant. Now I figure that australians are nuts with what they plant. jacandas next to a house for one.

And bottle brushes which the council planted in every street and now and for the past 20 years residents have had trouble with tree roots in the pipes

 

[Veggiepatch]

The hypocrisy of local councils knows no bounds. It gets serious when a council's inaction towards a hazardous tree results in the death of a person, even though that person lodged numerous and repeated applications for its removal. Here is a prime example.

The seven gum trees stood 30 metres high and 10 metres from the Timbs family house.

Gordon Timbs knew they posed a threat to his family and property, and he wanted them removed.

So in July 1996 the 48-year-old sought permission from Shoalhaven City Council to cut them down. He was refused under the Tree Preservation Order. Eighteen months later, when a large branch fell on a vehicle, he repeated his concerns to the council. It again refused, saying the trees were "sound" and could not be removed.

Mr Timbs, a father-of-two, even threatened to take the matter into his own hands, telling a council officer that if he could not obtain permission he would just have to cut them down himself to protect his family. He was subsequently warned that if he did so he would be fined $2000 per tree.

Six months later during a storm one of the trees came down - on top of his house. Mr Timbs, who was asleep in his bed, was killed instantly.

I knew this family well.

Source: https://www.smh.com.au/national/tre...ocked-removal-court-told-20021106-gdfskk.html

 

[Veggiepatch]

Part 2.

Councils could face new liabilities if they stop home owners cutting down trees after a woman whose husband died when a gum fell on their house was awarded almost $750,000 in damages.

The NSW Supreme Court of Appeal unanimously held that Shoalhaven City Council was liable for the death of Gordon Timbs, who died instantly when a 25-metre spotted gum fell on his house in South Nowra during a windstorm in 1998.

His wife, Carlene Timbs, had sued Shoalhaven City Council for negligence, claiming that as the council had inspected the four large trees on the property twice and declared them safe, it should be liable for his death.

Yesterday the NSW Court of Appeal agreed, overturning an earlier District Court decision in favour of the council.

The Local Government Association's lawyers were studying the decision last night before the body would comment. But the case is likely to have serious implications for councils who give advice on the safety of trees and then refuse permission for them to be cut down under tree preservation orders.
Source: https://www.smh.com.au/national/cou...ng-plea-to-cut-down-tree-20040402-gdinmy.html

 

[marni]

All good - but then council ignores their own rules when it suits them. We had to have three canopy trees per block. New development and that went out the window. Cannot cut trees when they are a nuisance - big development up the road and soo many trees were. Sacrificed. This was once a koala area- no more

 

[freedy50]

Are you in one of the new areas

Newish and still more house building being done in the Illawarra area.

 

[PattiB]

My son lives in Bassendean & has a large gum tree on the nature strip to the side of his house which the council cut back last year. It was mainly only the branch which grew over the top of his house but the leaves make such a mess. We noticed a couple of years ago that a lot of trees had red tape around them which apparently meant that they were protected. I love trees but common sense needs to be applied. In Launceston we have rules about not cutting anything that forms the skyline of the city.