Deputations to and attendance at Council Meetings

On 8 February 2022 I attended the City of South Perth Annual Electors’ Meeting and asked questions of the Council regarding changes to its Heritage Policy. The minutes of that meeting can be found here. Search for my name (Ctr+F on a PC) to see my questions.

My questions at that meeting were consequent upon my attendance at the Council meeting on 14 December 2021 where I sought to understand why the City seemingly allowed a developer to advertise the destruction of a building on the City’s Heritage Inventory - the Church of St-Martin-in-the-field in Dyson Street Kensington. The answers can be found in the minutes, here.

I presented to the Council at the Agenda Briefing Meeting on 7 December 2021, speaking against the reclassification of the Church of St-Martin-in-the-field in the Local Heritage Inventory, from Category B to Category C. The reclassification to Category C would have allowed a developer to demolish the Church. The City agreed with the many submissions to retain the heritage classification and hence save the Church.

Also at the meeting on 8 February 2022 I addressed the Council on the matter of tree canopy. Here’s what I said:

“To quote Wangari Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize: “the generation that destroys the environment, is not the generation who pays the price” The City of South Perth is lucky that it is an established suburb with many established trees. This is no doubt one of the elements that attracts people to the area.

Perth has just had its hottest January on record. It is an established scientific fact that shaded trees assist to keep areas cool and that even shaded roads need less maintenance. Cooler environments means less use of power to cool homes and buildings which means there is less energy consumed resulting in environmental savings. Trees also provide habitats for birds and native animals and finally but crucially oxygen.

Yet landowners are allowed to clear fell blocks that are subject to redevelopment, and I offer this up, by way of evidence (before and after photos of a block of land in the City under development). This is not a great photo, because it is taken from google street view but it is of a block of land in Karoo Street South Perth where once upon a time as you can see at the top, it was a heavily treed block. The property was sold last year and the photograph at the bottom is what is there now. It is nothing but sand.

So, developers are apparently happy to build in a shady green suburb but feel no obligation to contribute to that green cover. Before I am told that the power to preserve trees lies with another level of government, I note that the Nedlands Council seems willing to enact requirements for the preservation of trees on blocks under development and in fact in most other Australian cities tree preservation laws exist at the local council level and no one is rising up in the streets as a result. People in those areas understand that they are the custodians of the trees on their blocks and not the owners. And before you tell me again that the Council has a mechanism for landowners to protect trees on their own land, could we just take a moment to consider how self interested capitalism has done such a grand job of preserving the environment… or not.

You must consider whether you are happy for your grandchildren to live in an increasingly hot, treeless city as urban renewal and this sort of thing takes place or does the Council consider that the preservation of or replanting of like for like trees. I.e. you take out a 20m tree, you put one back on private land is a priority and if so, what are you going to do about it?”

Council’s answers can be found at page 21 of the minutes.