Dear NRPG members and interested,

You may be interested in this summary by EcoVision.

Kind regards,
Steve Gates

Secretary, NRPG Bushcarers

Hello Everyone

The Council Meeting last night was relatively brief with only two Deputations from the community on the night.

·         Deputation on Lewis Road tree removal

Lewis Road, Wattle Grove resident Kim Sinclair delivered a deputation on the removal of protected trees at 28 Lewis Road, Wattle Grove (Lot 213). The development was approved in 2019 by the Metro East Joint Development Assessment Panel under Condition 25, which required retention of around 15 trees shown on the approved landscape plan and compliance with the Australian Standard for protecting trees on development sites. During early site works, the roots of several of these trees were undermined. The developer then supplied an arborist report to City staff, who determined under presumed delegated authority that the trees could be removed. Neither the report nor the decision came before a full Council meeting, and residents woke one morning to the sound of chainsaws.

Kim’s point was that the original application drew more than 400 public submissions, and that community input counts for little if conditions negotiated through consultation can later be varied by a non-elected City officer, without reference to Council, behind closed doors. He has circulated a draft motion for the August Ordinary Council Meeting, which he is hoping a Councillor will move. The draft motion would amend the City’s register of delegations so that any decision to remove trees subject to an assigned retention condition must be decided by full Council, in public, rather than by staff alone.

Cr David Modolo followed up with a direct question to the Director of Development Services, asking whether the decision was made under delegated authority and, if so, whether that delegation could be revoked so Council determines these matters in future. The Director confirmed the removal was authorised under delegation flowing from the original panel approval and undertook to take on notice whether the delegation itself can be changed.

We’ll keep you posted on the draft motion when it comes before the August meeting.

A brief note on Regulation 17 (not raised at the meeting, included here for context)

Mayor Margaret Thomas told the Echo newspaper that Regulation 17 of the Planning Regulations allowed a City officer to make this call to remove the protected trees .

Regulation 17 lets a landowner apply to amend or delete a condition on a DAP approval, but only the DAP panel itself can decide that application. City staff have no power to determine a regulation 17 application at all, a point confirmed in the Department of Planning’s own practice notes, which state that not even the DAP secretariat or executive director can make that call, only the panel. On its face then , the Mayor’s statement that Regulation 17 allowed a City officer to decide this does not appear correct.

Community Question Time: Hannah Lill on Canopy Protection and Planting Investment

At the Council Meeting, Hannah Lill, from the Kalamunda Tree Canopy Advocates group asked two questions on the public record.

The first followed up on the alternate motion Council carried in June (moved by Cr Modolo), which asked the CEO to bring back a report on practical, non-regulatory and incentive based measures to protect and grow canopy across the City. Hannah asked when that report would come to Council and whether it would be made public. The Director of Development Services confirmed staff are working on it, but the City has not yet set a date for when it will be finished or presented. We’ll keep watching for this one and let you know as soon as a timeframe is confirmed.

The second question asked Council to put a number on its stated preference for planting over retention. A City officer stated that when examining the three most recent capital budgets, the City’s tree planting allocation has grown from around $30,000 in 2024/25, to around $50,000 in 2025/26, to around $160,000 in the 2026/27 budget adopted this year.

That seems to be a genuine increase, and more money going into planting is welcome. But it has to be juxtaposed against the fact that nearly 80% of residential homes in the City of Kalamunda have zero tree canopy. Moreover it’s worth understanding what planting can and cannot do. A newly planted tree typically takes fifteen to twenty years, often longer depending on species, before its canopy comes close to matching what a single mature tree already provides, in cooling, habitat and stormwater benefit. Planting budgets build the forest of the future; they don’t replace the canopy we already have. That’s why EcoVision continues to argue that retention and planting need to work together, not as a substitute for one another, if the City is serious about reaching its canopy target.

Thank you to Hannah for keeping these questions on the record. Public question time is one of the few formal ways ratepayers can hold Council to its own commitments, so well done to Hannah for her polite doggedness in following up these issues.

---

Carmel Schoolhouse Costs Questioned at Council

Bev also put a formal question to the City during public question time, asking what the investigation into commercial use of the Carmel Schoolhouse historic site has actually cost ratepayers so far.

Council had previously confirmed the City has been looking into commercial options for the site for around 12 months. Bev asked for the total cost to date, including internal staff time and any external contractor or consultant fees, and whether this spending had been authorised by a prior council resolution.

Director,  Chris Lodge responded that he didn’t have the figures on hand, and the question was taken on notice.

What “taken on notice” means for residents

When a question can’t be answered on the night, it’s recorded and the City is required to provide a written response, usually published in the minutes of a future meeting. It’s a normal part of council process, but it also means residents won’t get an answer to the question until a later date.

Why this matters

Twelve months of investigation and business case work represents a real cost to ratepayers, whether in staff hours or consultant fees. Knowing that figure, and whether it was properly authorised by council resolution, goes to basic transparency and accountability. EcoVision will follow up once the City’s written response is published and report back.

That is all for now .

Kind regards

Bev & Charles Dornan