South Perth tiny trees to be ripped up after residents win fight to protect ‘million-dollar views’

Six tiny trees along the South Perth foreshore that residents feared would block their “million-dollar views” will be ripped up after the local council voted in favour of aggrieved residents along one street.

City of South Perth councillor Nic Coveney said he had met with over a dozen Jubilee Street residents concerned they could lose their multimillion-dollar views of the Perth skyline due to trees planted on the south side of Lake Douglas, between their backyards and the river.

View a few metres from the boundary of one of the private properties, with the saplings circled.Credit: City of South Perth

In a meeting on Tuesday night, councillors discussed Coveney’s motion to request the chief executive at the city remove the juvenile trees, planted in June 2024, and instead plant 135 square metres of “low-level planting” as a comparative replacement.

He also requested a councillor workshop to develop a policy on planting trees on public land by no later than January 1.

“The trees versus views debate has long been an issue of contention in our community. That debate has not yet been resolved, putting councillors in the rather unpleasant middle of competing interests,” Coveney said.

“We have residents who have paid a premium for their views and the very real prospect that their amenity and the value of their properties will decline if that view is obstructed.

“I am concerned by the misinformation being spread, political motivations and the ‘eat the rich’ undertones of some against this motion.

“South Perth consists of and welcomes people from many diverse backgrounds with different means, needs and opportunities. Why should we treat our affluent community any differently.”

Coveney acknowledged “residents who are passionate about tree canopy”, but said his motion was a compromise between the two.

“The South Perth foreshore is 62 hectares – there are so many other areas where planting trees which would grow to such heights would not cause such discourse,” Coveney said.

“This 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.”

He said the process, including removing the trees and replanting them, would cost around $30,000.

Mayor Greg Milner said he thought motions like this were a bad idea and short-sighted.

“They 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,” he said.

“In this case, Councillor Coveney tells us that he’s been contacted by over a dozen residents on Jubilee Street.

“I don’t 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.

“But I do note that we’ve all received correspondence from many, many, many other residents – we’ve even received correspondence from other residents who also live in Jubilee Street – asking us to retain the trees.

“This 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.”

Milner also expressed concerns over setting a precedent that the council would remove any trees requested by the community.

“If 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.

“Well, I’m sorry I’m not going to support that.

“The second path is that we remove trees for some people, but we don’t remove trees for others, and that’s going to be kind of hard for us to justify in terms of consistent decision-making.

“This, 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’m voting against this notice of motion.”

Coveney’s motion was then put to a vote, and was carried four votes to three.

A decision on when the trees will be removed, and where replacement greenery will be planted, is yet to be made.

South Perth Tree Canopy Advocates spokesperson Bronwyn David said she was “sad and disappointed” by the decision but “not that surprised”.

“I’m tired of having to fight these ridiculous battles,” she said.

“It’s very sad to think that the interests of a few will result in the probable death of six trees.”

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.

“The 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,” David said.

Get alerts on breaking news as it happens. Sign up for our Breaking News Alert.