Buildings/webstertree.html

[[Buildings/index.html|]]

Freotopia > buildings >

Webster's fig tree

Moreton Bay fig, ficus macrophylla, planted 1885 by Philip Cranworth Webster at the front of Cranworth Villa, his house, now at 195 High Street.

Philip Webster, hotelier, auditor, nurseryman, bought a large block in High Street (Lot 388 or 389?) in 1885 and by 1886 had a two-storey, 10-room house built on it surrounded by verandahs, with a conservatory/nursery, large garden –  and a Moreton Bay fig sapling in the front garden, near the street. The house and the tree still stand, nearly 140 years later.

In early February 2024 the tree was under imminent threat of destruction, Council having voted (14 Feb) to remove it from the Significant Trees Register. On 27 February 2024, following Cr Adin Lang indicating his intention to move that that motion be rescinded, the Mayor has bowed to public opinion and stated in a post to Facebook that she will move to revoke the decision of 14 February. Not only that, but she plans to take over Adin Lang's motion with one of her own to divide the Tree Register into two parts, one of which will address cultural heritage value.

Webster's house, Cranworth Villa, at 195 High St, with large ficus macrophylla; my photo 2018. As Webster acquired the land in 1885 and the house was built in 1886, the Moreton Bay fig was probably planted then, and is over 135 years old. The arborist consulted by the Council in 2024 found that it was a healthy tree. It was under threat after Council voted to take if off the Register of Significant Trees. (Council agenda and minutes take up most the latter part of this page.)

J.K. Hitchcock 1929:
On October 1, 1890, the anniversary of Trafalgar Day, the Moreton Bay fig tree in the triangle of Adelaide-street and Edward-street was planted by His Excellency the Governor, Sir William Robinson, in commemoration of responsible government being granted to the colony. The tree was provided by Phillip Webster, one of the auditors of the Fremantle Municipal Council, who, with the mayor and councillors, attended the Governor and handed to him a gold-painted spade with which he performed the ceremony. It was intended that the spade should be placed with the municipal treasures, but it disappeared. Webster, it should be recorded, planted most of the trees growing in St John's Church grounds. Hitchcock: 70.

Heritage Council
History
... Records indicate that the Moreton Bay Fig Tree (ficus macrophylla) was planted in the late 1880s by Webster in the grounds of his large house. This particular tree is purported to be the progenitor of many of the Moreton Bay Fig trees in Fremantle, including the Proclamation Tree (which was planted in 1890). Webster is also credited with planting the Moreton Bay Fig trees around Kings Square and St John's Church grounds.
Following Webster's death in 1893, the property passed to his Trustees. His son, Philip Cranworth Webster, and a Duffield relative were the executors of the will, which left the house to his housekeeper in trust during her lifetime. According to local legend, the will specified that one of the conditions of the will was that the housekeeper preserve the tree. (It should be noted that this speculation does not appear to have been verified against Webster's will.)
During the 1970s, development encroached significantly on the Moreton Bay Fig tree at 195 High Street. Following a development application for the site lodged with the City of Fremantle in 1987, the tree was nominated to the Tree Society of Western Australia for consideration for entry on their Register of Significant Trees. Following an assessment process, the tree was included in the Register for its aesthetics, size and age. The tree was accepted by the National Trust of Australia (WA) as being significant on 18 January 1988. At the time, it was considered to be in good condition, approximately 95 years in age, 32 metres in height with a circumference of 6 metres and a canopy spread of 18 metres.
In 1987, John Cattalini (who had been a part owner of the property since at least 1966) became the sole owner.
In 2001, an application was made to the City for removal of the tree. The application stated that the tree required high maintenance as it continually dropped leaves and fruit, which also attracted vermin such as rats. The owners' concerns brought out a strong community response in support of retaining the tree. Following consultation and negotiation, the City prepared a management plan for the tree to assist with its maintenance.
Physical Description
A mature Moreton Bay Fig tree (Ficus Macrophylla) is located at the north-east corner of the site. The surrounding landscape has altered significantly around the tree. It is located in a raised brick garden bed and is flanked on three sides by a later (post 1960) single storey chemist building constructed to the east of the house.

John Dowson:
Philip Cranworth Webster collapsed while walking through one of his favourite places, Fremantle Park. He was taken to his home nearby at 195 High Street, a few doors away from Victoria Hall, and died soon afterwards sitting on his verandah. That was September, 1893, but Philip Webster's legacy lives on. His house is still there, and it is the first house in High Street when travelling from the beginning of High Street at the Round House. Webster built his two-storey ten room house in 1885 and besides his insistence on a verandah all round, he had constructed a conservatory for the raising of plants. While having various careers and interests, including building the Federal Coffee Palace, now Lance Holt School in Henry Street, his passion was plants and trees. The West Australian (22/8/1885) noted that 'many gardens now in Fremantle were in emulation of Mr Webster, who formerly had perhaps the finest collection of flowers in the colony.' In fact the area between his former house in Adelaide Street and the front fence was described as 'a panorama of multiflorous loveliness'.
Following Webster's death the High Street house had many uses, including being the German Club after 1901 and the timber yard for Bunnings from 1907. In his will Webster stipulated that the Moreton Bay fig tree in the front yard was not to be touched, and 137 years later it survives as the largest tree in High Street. He is also responsible for planting the huge Moreton Bay fig trees in Kings Square, and the Proclamation Tree opposite St Patrick's Basilica in 1890.
We need more Philip Websters out there planting trees. What is not commonly appreciated is that the Moreton Bay trees have a value of hundreds of thousands of dollars. John Dowson, personal communication.

Letter to the editor of the Fremantle Herald, 16 February 2024:
Give a fig
We are told that the Moreton Bay fig tree in High Street is to be removed because it is “in the wrong place”.
The most important point about the location of this tree is that it is right next to Philip Webster’s house, Cranworth Villa.
I don’t think there can be any doubt that it was planted by Webster himself: the Heritage Council says so!
It is the source of other important Fremantle trees: the Heritage Council says that too!
The most important of those is undoubtedly the Proclamation Tree.
Webster actually planted that too – he was at the ceremony, and handed the spade to the governor, William Robinson, who did the ceremonial bit, after which Webster would have completed the job.
All of the trees that used to be in what is now Walyalup Koort were also planted by Webster, as were many of the trees that used to surround Fremantle Park.
There is no tree in Fremantle more important than the tree in High Street.
It would be a shame and a disgrace if it were removed.
Garry Gillard
Fremantle

Fremantle Society letter to members, 23 February 2024:
Do You Give a Fig?

Philip Webster – The Hero “Phantom Tree Planter” from 195 High Street Fremantle

The erroneous decision by Fremantle Council to remove the most significant tree in Fremantle from its Significant Tree Register has resulted in a massive public backlash.
Some of that backlash is confected outrage - the back story being the Greens getting energised and ready for next year’s mayoral election and the ousting of the Labor mayor Fitzhardinge with Cr Lang.
The real story is that not only is the tree of supreme importance, but it was planted by the “Phantom Planter” of Fremantle, Philip Webster, and still exists on the same site as his own pre-Gold-Rush home, at 195 High Street.
The Moreton Bay Fig tree can be said to be the most significant tree in Fremantle because it was planted by Philip Webster at the front of his own property 135 years ago, where his house, Cranworth Villa, was built the year before. Both house and tree are still together on the site – remarkable survivors.
Webster was, among other things, a nurseryman whose wide horticultural interests even had the Governor paying him a visit. For the first time in WA, Webster imported Moreton Bay fig trees in 1885 from the eastern states where they were native. From the 1860s the Norfolk Island Pine had often been the trophy tree for landmark plantings, but Webster introduced the super-sized spreading shady fig trees, and it is possible the tree under threat is the oldest one in Western Australia.
Certainly a year later when council was organising events to commemorate Responsible Government (with the biggest budget being for champagne), Philip Webster offered to donate a fig tree, to be the Proclamation Tree in Mayor’s Park, Adelaide Street, thus promoting the use of the newly imported tree as a landmark species.
Webster’s work as a “phantom planter” of this species around Fremantle was possibly his way of popularising his newly introduced landmark. The ones he planted in King’s Square were recently chopped down by Fremantle council and now they have just deregistered Webster’s Tree.
The process of delisting is disturbing. Mayor Fitzhardinge claimed on 6PR radio that the owners never gave consent, that there is “a principle at issue” and that the tree is “outgrowing its space there.” All of those statements are false.
The house and the tree have been heritage listed for years on various lists and in 2019 when the Significant Tree Register was established, the tree listing was simply migrated there along with 6 other trees. Cr Lawver in The Age (23 Feb 2024) quotes from an officer document which states there was no objection from the owner in 2000, no objection when it was on a different list in 2008, and no objection in 2019. The heritage officer report states that the tree is “an exceptional specimen.”
What the mayor does not state is that there is still in existence since 1995 an agreement that council will help maintain the tree, something her council has not been doing, and the angst of the elderly owner having to do the maintenance herself has been galling to see.
When the value of the tree and its planter, the “Phanton Planter” is considered with the rare pre-Gold-Rush house adjacent together, it paints a picture of a stellar potential tourist attraction, which any historic city would rush to protect and enhance.
While trees in urban environments average a 40 year lifespan, this magnificent tree is already 135 years old and the recent arborist report says it has 40 plus years left.
Philip Webster barely lived for five years in his new house Cranworth Villa, but as Chairman of the Reform Movement, a group holding council to account, he would have fought to save his tree. As he said in 1884: “As long as I have breath I will raise my voice in defense of right, and to expose wrong.”
John Dowson
President
The Fremantle Society

Fremantle Herald article, 16 February 2024:
MIGHTY FIG TREE DROPS OFF THE LIST
February 16, 2024
by STEVE GRANT
FREMANTLE council has voted to remove a 130-year-old Moreton Bay fig from its significant tree register, paving the way for the Cattalini family to cut down the 27-metre giant and sell their old pharmacy on High Street.
There’s some debate about the tree’s history, but it is linked to local nurseryman Phillip Webster whose 1890s house is still on the Cattalini’s block, and it could have been the progenitor of Walyalup Koort’s Moreton Bays and perhaps even the city’s Proclamation Tree near St Patrick’s Basilica.
Pharmacist John Cattalini was a former mayor of Fremantle and his wife Pamela appealed for the council to take it off the register because of the burden it had become.
“This property has been in our family for approximately 60 years; it was put into my name 30 years ago,” Ms Cattalini said.
• The fig tree and its fruit have loomed over the sale of the 2033sqm property on High Street. Photo by Steve Grant >
Mammoth
“Over that time it has been my responsibility to keep up the maintenance of this tree which has been a mammoth undertaking.
“I did not give permission for this tree to be put on the significant tree list and as it is on private property I do not know why it is on the list.”
Ms Cattalini said the tree dropped figs four months of the year, constantly shed leaves which got into the buildings’ gutters, and had roots damaging a wall. She heads down to the building with her children every day to sweep the car park clean to ensure her tenants don’t trip or tramp muck through their offices.
“I have been trying to sell this property to no avail, as no one wants the responsibility of this problem, therefore it is also impossible to lease the building so I’m suffering financially.” She estimated that paying someone to sweep the block, clear the gutters and repair the wall would cost $25,000.
Twenty years ago the tree’s fate was also in the balance, but after a community backlash the council agreed to help Ms Cattalini with the maintenance, something she told the meeting hadn’t occurred.
Her daughter Stacey Towne disputed the council report linking the fig to the Proclamation Tree.
“This has never been proven, casting doubt on its heritage significance,” she said.
“Moreover, claiming this tree’s heritage has not changed since 2001 ignores the removal of similar trees by council from Walyalup Koort.”
Ms Towne said the tree blocked surveillance.
“We’ve had people sleeping rough, drug taking and even had to clean up human urine and faeces,” she said.
Council staff had recommended keeping the tree on the register, but councillor Jenny Archibald was concerned by the fact the Cattalinis had no say in the tree being registered on the list and put up an amendment to remove it.
“It does constrain the heritage building that is on the site and I think the opportunity for the owners of the property is seriously impinged by the fact that the tree is still there.
“Those trees need a lot of space around them,” she said, noting its large canopy dropped “dangerous fruit”.
Only councillors Ben Lawver and Doug Thompson voted against taking the tree off the register, but Cr Fedele Camarda said he’d like to see the fig live again by being propagated in one of the city’s parks.
Fremantle Society president John Dowson, who’d been working with the Cattalinis to find a buyer for the site with the tree, or to get the council to improve its maintenance, was blunt about the decision.
“If council can sponsor women’s soccer they can support a 100 year old tree of ‘exceptional’ stature,” Mr Dowson said, referring to the Girls Festival of Community Soccer due to be held at Fremantle Oval in March.

Fremantle Herald article, 23 February 2024:
COUNCIL IN A JAM OVER FIG DECISION
February 23, 2024, by STEVE GRANT
FREMANTLE council appears to have misread the room after paving the way for a 130-year-old fig tree to be cut down on High Street, facing a stinging backlash this week.
On Thursday a crowd of around 120 people, including MP Brad Pettitt and Eskimo Joe guitarist Stu MacLeod, held up traffic outside the old Cattalini pharmacy as they noisily discussed the decision and posed for a Herald photo.
A Change.org petition started on Monday by someone listing themselves as “Green Day” had already racked up 9,329 signatures when the Herald went to print on Thursday evening.
The fig tree has also lit up the airwaves with 6PR covering the issue this week and the ABC giving the Herald a call looking for sources for a couple of programs it had in the pipeline.
• Around 120 people attended a protest photo shoot in response to Freo council taking this Moreton Bay fig off its significant tree register, paving the way for it to be cut down.
Rescind
Green Day called on the council to rescind the decision.
“The proposed demolition threatens not only this individual tree but sets a dangerous precedent for future decisions regarding our natural heritage in Fremantle and beyond,” they wrote.
“We must stand together as a community and demand that our government prioritise environmental concerns over short-term private financial gains.”
They also called on the council to act on a previous agreement with the Cattalini family, which still owns the property but blame the tree for their inability to find a buyer, to assist with its maintanance.
Design Freo organised the photo shoot, and secretary Emma Brain told the Herald she was overwhelmed by the response.
“It shows that we are prepared to stand up for the things we value in Fremantle,” Ms Brain said.
Zoe Saleeba, daughter of prominent Fremantle architect, the late Trevor Saleeba, was in the crowd and had environmental rather than heritage values in mind.
“I live in Fremantle and am on my street all the time, and am constantly aware of the rising heat,” Ms Saleeba said.
“My kids are growing up in Fremantle and I want a healthy future for them, so it’s important to keep as much canopy here as possible.”
Ms Saleeba’s three-year-old son Remy Finnie was a bit more blunt about the decision to remove the tree’s protection: “I am going to tell them they are stupid,” he said.
The protest brought out the entire team from South Fremantle-based landscape architects See Design Studio.
Director Joel Barker told the Herald there were many options to develop the site, which with sensitive landscape planning could see the fig remain.
The public backlash isn’t the first time the council has faced criticism for weakening the tree’s protection; 20 years ago it had to back down and agree to help the Cattalinis look after the tree after similar protests.
Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge said the fig’s future was an emotive issue for many in the community and not everyone would be pleased with the council’s decision.
“On balance, Council’s decision responded to the concerns of the landowners,” she said.
“The decision was made after due consideration of the officer’s report and submissions received.
“The future of the tree is now in the hands of the property owner, who has cared for and maintained the tree for the past 60 years.”
Ms Fitzhardinge noted that another tree in Douglas Street was added to the register at the request of the owner.
“To be listed on the City’s significant tree register, property owners must self-nominate a tree for inclusion,” the mayor said.
“The City does not have a policy that allows it to list trees on private property where the landowner does not give consent.”

Ben Lawver Freo Councillor, in Facebook, 23 February 2024:
I have just received advice that there was no objection from the landowner when this tree was first placed on the Heritage Register in 2000.
There was no objection from the landowner when it was placed on a different list in 2008.
There was also no objection from the landowner in 2019 when this 130 year old Moreton Bay Fig tree was moved to the Significant Tree Register.
The only thing that has changed is this piece of land is now for sale.

Fremantle City Council
Ordinary Meeting of Council
Agenda, 14 February 2024
pp. 82-105

C2402-5 NOMINATIONS FOR THE REGISTER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES
2023 – 195 HIGH STREET, 6 DOUGLAS STREET – OUTCOMES
OF CONSULTATION
Meeting date: 14 February 2024
Responsible officer: Manager Strategic Planning and City Design
Voting requirements: Simple Majority
Attachments: 1. Nomination for addition – 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
2. Request for removal – 195 High Street, Fremantle
3. Assessment – 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
4. Assessment – 195 High Street, Fremantle
5. Heritage Assessment – 195 High Street, Fremantle
6. Independent arborist report - 195 High Street, Fremantle
7. Submission – 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
8. Submission – 195 High Street, Fremantle
SUMMARY
In 2023, the City received two nominations pertaining to the Register of
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas (the Register):
• the inclusion of a Lemon Scented Gum, 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle,
• the removal of a Moreton Bay Fig, 195 High Street, Fremantle.
The City subsequently conducted assessments of the significance of each
tree, including a heritage assessment, and commissioned an independent
arborist’s report for the tree located at 195 High Street, Fremantle.
Following these assessments, the City engaged with the landowners in
accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Local
Planning Policy 2.23 – Register of Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas
(LPP2.23). In response, both landowners have provided submissions in
relation to their respective trees.
This report recommends that Council does not include the Lemon Scented
Gum at 6 Douglas Street on the Register, but retains the Moreton Bay Fig at
195 High Street on the Register with a commitment to revisit its position
upon receipt of a formal redevelopment application for the site, provided
that any proposal demonstrates other positive heritage outcomes and/or
community benefit.
87/134
BACKGROUND
In 2023, the City received two submissions pertaining to its Register of Significant
Trees and Vegetation Areas: one for the inclusion of a Lemon Scented Gum at 6
Douglas Street, Fremantle, and another for the removal of a Moreton Bay Fig at 195
High Street, Fremantle.
6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
The landowner has nominated a Lemon Scented Gum for inclusion on the Register
of Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas. The tree is approximately 20 metres in
height, 2.1 metres in circumference and 40 years old. The landowner considers that
the tree has Visual/Aesthetic/Landmark, Heritage and Ecological Value, per the
assessment criteria set out in LPP2.23.
The landowner states that tree is very large for a private garden in Fremantle and
one of the largest in the area. The tree provides habitat and natural shade and is
much loved by Douglas Street residents.
See Attachment 1 for the full nomination.
195 High Street, Fremantle
The landowner has requested the removal of a Moreton Bay Fig Tree from the
Register of Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas. The landowner states that they
have owned 195 High Street for 60 years and that the tree's presence is deterring
potential buyers, creating financial hardship:
This property has been on the market for a number of years and each time
an entity shows interest, they are put off by the registration of the tree on
the Significant Tree Register. This coupled with the downturn in commercial
economy in the City of Fremantle in general, is causing me great financial
hardship.
The request notes that the tree poses other issues, including falling fruit and
branches, which cause damage to infrastructure, clog drains, and create hazards:
Although in itself, it is a lovely tree, unfortunately it has no place on an
inner-city commercial property.
It constantly drops fruit and small branches (a few years ago it actually
dropped a very large limb that could have had serious consequences to
person and property). The fruit and small branches clog up the gutters and
drains on buildings and soak wells. They dirty the cars parked on the site
and cause a slipping hazard to pedestrians.
88/134
I find it difficult to accept that I am forced to keep this tree when the
Fremantle Council was allowed to remove most of their Moreton Bay Figs in
St Johns Square for redevelopment.
This tree is in very close proximity to retaining walls, buildings and other
infrastructure.
The landowner questions how the tree was registered without consent and argues
that the proximity to buildings and infrastructure justifies its removal under local
planning policies.
Additionally, the tree's impact on development potential is highlighted, with claims
that it impedes the site's commercial viability:
• The development potential of the site is severely restricted and prospects
for retaining the tree in future development is very low.
• The tree is directly abutting buildings and infrastructure and has already
caused some damage.
• The tree is not within an area of ecological value or in a biodiversity
corridor.
The submission proposes removal from the Register to facilitate property sale and
suggests alternative options like transplanting the tree or using its seeds for
propagation in a more suitable community parkland setting.
See Attachment 2 for the full request.
Assessment Process
The City’s Local Planning Policy 2.23 – Register of Significant Trees and Vegetation
Areas (LPP2.23) provides criteria for inclusion on the Significant Trees and
Vegetation Areas Register. Following the two submissions, the City has conducted
assessments on the significance of each tree following the process provided under
LPP2.23. A heritage assessment was also undertaken, and an independent arborist’s
report commissioned for the tree located at 195 High Street. The assessments and
arborist’s report are provided in Attachments 4-6, with summaries provided below:
6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
Significant Tree Assessment:
Lemon-scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora)
Condition:
• The tree is a healthy specimen with ongoing viability.
• It is not a species considered a weed of national interest.
89/134
Significance Assessment:
i. Botanical/Horticultural Value:
• The tree is not of species rarity and has little horticultural or genetic
significance.
• It is not of unique size, lacks scientific value, and is not endemic to Western
Australia.
ii. Visual/Aesthetic/Landmark Value:
• The specimen is species-typical and does not represent a significant
landmark.
• City officers do not consider it to have significant visual or aesthetic
qualities.
iii. Heritage Value:
• The specimen has no known heritage value.
iv. Ecological Value:
• The tree provides habitat for birds but does not have nesting hollows
identified.
• It has no pre-European connection or ecological significance and does not
provide substantial canopy cover.
v. Potential of a Juvenile Tree:
• Not applicable; no comment provided.
Additional Considerations:
• Ongoing viability is assessed considering development potential, proximity to
buildings/infrastructure, impact on neighbouring properties, and root structure
attributes.
• Trees with limited prospect of long-term retention or lifespan will not be
included.
• Ecological value assessment considers proximity to recognised ecological
linkages or biodiversity corridors.
See Attachment 3 for the full assessment report.
195 High Street, Fremantle
Significant Tree Assessment:
Moreton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla)
• Height (approximate): 27+ metres
• Girth 1.4 metres above ground: three metres
90/134
• Age (approximate): 100+ years
Condition and Ongoing Viability:
• The tree is a healthy specimen with ongoing viability.
• Vitality is demonstrated through canopy density, foliage size, and colour.
• No observable decline patterns; active wound wood development.
• Historical removal of large diameter stems for building clearance, with regions of
decay.
• Significant below-ground root system, impacting infrastructure; observed
damage to walls.
• Approximately 100 years old, with a main stem diameter exceeding three
metres and a crown of approximately 630 square metres.
• Heritage genetic significance related to local nurseryman Philip Webster, linked
to the Proclamation Tree.
Significance Assessment:
i. Botanical/Horticultural Value:
• Little horticultural or genetic significance in WA.
• Not considered a remnant native to WA.
• Outstanding for size and location but falls short of true-to-species potential in
urban confines.
ii. Visual/Aesthetic/Landmark Value:
• Unique location in a confined urban setting.
• High contribution to the visual landscape, outstanding for size and location.
• Limited defining visual features; better than average for an urban setting.
iii. Heritage Value:
• Heritage genetic significance linked to Philip Webster, a local nurseryman.
• Considered the progenitor of many Moreton Bay Fig trees in Fremantle.
• A separate heritage report provides a comprehensive assessment.
iv. Ecological Value:
• Limited importance as a source of seed or propagating material.
• Not a remnant native to Western Australia.
• Provides significant urban canopy cover.
• Classified as a reproductive host for Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer.
v. Potential of a Juvenile Tree:
• Not applicable; no comment provided.
91/134
Ongoing Viability Considerations:
• Development potential comes with risks due to confined space and large root
structures.
• Current damage to infrastructure; potential for disturbance to above-ground
structures and below-ground urban structures.
• Preliminary assessments indicate tolerable risk thresholds, but further, in-depth
assessments are needed.
• Tree owner responsibility for monitoring and maintenance.
Ecological Value Assessment:
• Proximity to recognised ecological linkages or biodiversity corridors is
considered.
See Attachment 4 for the full assessment report.
Heritage Assessment:
Background:
• Moreton Bay Fig Tree, approximately 130 years old, located at 195 High Street,
Fremantle.
• Planted by Fremantle nurseryman Phillip Webster in the late 1880s.
• Significant heritage recognition since the 1970s, listed on various heritage
registers.
• Council agreement in 1995 with property owners for joint tree maintenance.
• In 2001, an application to fell the tree was refused by the Council due to its
significant amenity value. This included considerable public comment received
against this proposal including a petition with 499 signatures and 11 individually
written submissions.
• In 2019, the tree was moved to the Significant Tree Register, aligning with State
Government policy.
Heritage Comments:
• The heritage value of the Moreton Bay Fig Tree remains unchanged since the
2001 review.
• The tree continues to be of significance to Fremantle.
• Conservation approach for trees differs from built heritage due to the evolving
nature of trees.
• The finite lifespan of trees may necessitate removal as part of care and
maintenance.
• Some heritage-protected Moreton Bay Fig Trees in Fremantle were removed due
to declining health.
92/134
• The arboricultural report confirms the good health of the tree at 195 High
Street.
• Although its exact lifespan is uncertain, the tree is considered an exceptional
specimen.
Recommendations:
• The heritage value of the tree has not diminished from when it was last
reviewed in 2001, and it remains significant to Fremantle.
• Continuous maintenance and monitoring by an Arboriculturist is recommended.
• If the tree significantly declines, does not respond to treatment, and reaches the
end of its life, removal can be considered.
• If removal occurs, material should be collected for propagation, and a
replacement tree can be planted on-site.
See Attachment 5 for the full heritage assessment.
Independent arborist’s report
This Preliminary VTA (Visual Tree Assessment) Report was prepared on 30
November 2023. A site visit inspection was conducted visually on 19 October 2023,
without below ground or aerial examination. The report outlines the tree's health,
structural status, and its potential for retention in the face of future development.
The report’s executive summary indicates that the Ficus macrophylla has high
retention value, displaying good health, seasonal growth, and a useful life
expectancy of over 40 years. Structural issues like previous pruning, stem failures,
and crossing stems can be addressed via ongoing tree management. The tree's root
system, impacted by various factors, suggests it can be retained with careful
planning.
The report emphasises the need for collaboration with arboriculture experts for
future development. It lists considerations such as soil level changes, service
alignments, building alignments, and canopy dimensions. Preliminary tree
preservation considerations highlight the importance of protecting the Tree
Protection Zone (TPZ) during construction, avoiding disturbance to roots, and
implementing remedial measures.
To ensure the tree's retention, a comprehensive Tree Retention Plan is
recommended, involving expert input, protection of the TPZ, and measures to
minimise root and canopy impact. The report suggests selective pruning,
supplementary watering, and potential remedial measures for both canopy and root
zone. It also stresses the importance of ongoing arboricultural inspections during
construction.
93/134
The report concludes that the tree's retention is feasible with timely and appropriate
implementation of recommendations. It underscores the environmental, habitat,
aesthetic, and amenity benefits provided by the tree, advocating for its
preservation. The proposed management plan includes monitoring schedules,
remedial pruning, and ongoing assessments for long-term health and safety. The
recommendations are categorised into short-term, medium-term, and longer-term
actions, emphasising the need for collaboration, an Arboricultural Management Plan
(AMP), and ongoing monitoring to ensure the tree's longevity.
See Attachment 6 for the full independent arborist’s report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The City's Parks and Landscapes team undertakes some maintenance associated
with the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street, Fremantle, amounting to a monthly
expenditure of $154, or $1,848 per annum, for gutter and roof cleaning.
Additionally, the car park on 195 High Street is swept on Mondays and the
surrounding paving is washed throughout the year as part of routine operations.
Further, the City conducts regular inspections of the tree, with notable proactive
measures taken in the past few years that involved pruning limbs that encroached
upon the roofline of the adjoining buildings, undertaking dead wooding, and lifting
branches over the adjacent footpath and roadway. Unfortunately, the exact costing
of this additional maintenance is unavailable.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Local Planning Scheme No. 4 makes provision for the establishment of a register of
significant trees and vegetation areas. Local Planning Policy 1.7 (effectively)
requires approval for removal of registered trees. Criteria for assessing nominations
and removal of trees from the Register are addressed in Local Planning Policy 2.23.
Private property rights between neighbours apply independently of the scheme and
policy provisions. Registration of a tree does not remove either the rights or
obligations of neighbours, nor does it alter maintenance or responsible management
responsibilities for it.
Under the Local Government Act 1995, Schedule 3.1, the City has the ability to
respond to safety concerns over trees on private property through the issuing of a
notice to the relevant property owner(s).
CONSULTATION
The owners of each tree were provided with the respective assessments and other
applicable reports for comment. At the conclusion of the engagement period, a
submission had been received from each landowner (the submission on 195 High
Street, Fremantle has been summarised for brevity):
94/134
6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
I note that you do not give the height of the tree in your report.
In the built-up area of Fremantle North of South Street there are very, very
few trees as large as this in the small suburban yards and town houses. In
this context the tree is very significant.
You state the canopy cover is not significant and yet it shades several back
gardens in summer depending on time of day.
In the 25 years I have lived here I have seen many trees removed.
Given all this I would respectfully ask yourself and the elected members to
reconsider your decision.
195 High Street, Fremantle
Thank you for the opportunity to address the assessment reports concerning
the application to remove the listing of the Moreton Bay fig tree at 195 High
Street Fremantle (ID 19-04) from the Register of Significant Trees and
Vegetation Areas.
Firstly, we acknowledge the significance of this magnificent tree, which has
been a cherished part of our family's property for many years. The
emotional connection to the tree is profound, and it is not without careful
consideration that we approach the Council seeking its removal from the
Register.
We understand the importance of preserving significant trees, but we also
believe that, in certain cases, the well-being and quality of life of property
owners should be given due consideration. Our family has a longstanding
history with this property, dating back to the 1960s when it was purchased…
and developed as a pharmacy.
The property, acquired long before any restrictions were imposed, has been
subject to increasing limitations over time. The current restrictions, including
the heritage listing of the house and the tree on the Register, significantly
impact the development potential of the site. The combined area of the tree
canopy and house footprint constitutes approximately 40% of the property,
creating constraints that affect almost half of the site.
We wish to highlight the financial implications and challenges imposed by
these restrictions, particularly in the context of the current commercial
environment in Fremantle. The Arborist report recommends extensive efforts
to ensure the tree's protection and health, further adding to the burden on
the landowner.
95/134
We propose the removal of the tree from the Register not as a desire to
eliminate the tree but to provide future landowners with the flexibility to
assess its feasibility within their development plans. This would enable a
balanced decision, and the Council could collaborate with potential
developers, offering incentives to retain the tree if desired.
We believe the Council should proactively support and promote the
development of the City. Failure to encourage and enable full utilisation the
site increases the likelihood of vandalism and vagrancy, posing a threat to
its well-being. Furthermore, there is a growing risk of being unable to
sustain the upkeep of the heritage house if development is constrained.
Should the tree be considered for future removal, inspiration can be taken
from this tree by propagating and planting it in a parkland setting, creating
a place where people can find shade for relaxation or children can engage in
climbing. We envision this transformation could take place in the four-square
park within the same locality, fostering a communal setting that encourages
shared experiences. Accompanying the tree with a plaque, narrating its
story and significance, and incorporating interpretation elements would
enhance the overall experience for visitors.
It is requested that Council consider the human aspect of this request,
recognising the long-standing contributions of the property owners to the
community. We respectfully request that the Council re-evaluates the listing,
taking into account the challenges posed by the tree's current location and
its impact on the property's development potential and risks posed to
infrastructure and persons.
In summary, this application to remove the Moreton Bay fig tree is grounded
in the necessity to address uncertainties, financial burdens, and
development constraints imposed by its inclusion in the Register. We
respectfully request a thorough reconsideration, considering the points
raised in this response and appreciate your courage, empathy, and respect
in considering a favourable resolution that takes into consideration the
unique circumstances of this property and its owners.
The submission on the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street is supplemented by a
detailed document addressing many aspects of the assessment, including the
heritage assessment and independent arborist’s report. Below is a summary of the
points contained therein:
Significance and registration of the tree:
The tree's listing in the Register is based on the assumption that it is the
progenitor of other significant trees in Fremantle. However, the absence of
substantiated evidence supporting this claim raises uncertainty about the
tree's heritage significance, and it is recommended to exclude this criterion
until concrete evidence is presented.
96/134
In accordance with LPP 2.23, the nomination of trees must be authorised by
the landowner. As has been communicated several times with staff at the
Council, we have not authorised the listing, making it unauthorised under
the current policy.
An application for removal was submitted in February 2023, expecting
consideration by April 2023 in accordance with LPP 2.23. However, staff
communication suggests a potential delay until February or March 2024. The
delay is unacceptable, causing stress, financial repercussions, and negatively
affecting the property's marketability.
It is agreed that the tree contributes to the visual landscape. However, this
is due to its size and the fact that this is an inner-city commercial property.
It therefore obviously stands out as would any tree on a private property in
the commercial area of the City.
Independent arborist’s report:
The Arborist Report indicates that the tree is currently in good health;
however, as is mentioned in all of the reports, it has a limited lifespan and
will eventually decline and die.
It is suggested that the tree may live for another 40 years; however, this
would need to be nurtured, cared for and protected to a great extent for this
to be a possibility. The Arborist is recommending a large scope of work
which is beyond the means of the landowner at this time.
As stated in the Assessment Report, the tree is not a remnant native to
Western Australia and is not of particular resistance to disease.
Please explain why the arborist’s report has made no reference to the fact
that the Shot Hole Borer infestation in the City and surrounds is very
susceptible to Moreton Bay Fig species, and the implications this has on the
future of the tree.
No reports have identified the presence of any significant wildlife habitats.
Whilst heat island effect reduction is mentioned in the Arborist Report, this
mainly relates to land within private property. A building with verandahs and
awnings could offer similar shade.
The Arborist Report, though long-awaited, has limitations in its scope.
The report had a scope biased on the tree being retained rather than being
objective and open to its retention and/or removal from the register. Why
did it not include investigating the current extent of the root system, and the
97/134
likely full extent of the root system should it remain and its effect on
services and the foundations of the heritage house on the property? Please
explain why the scope was limited as it did not provide any other advice
than how to retain and maintain the tree.
The Arborist Report lacks below ground and aerial inspections, and its
recommendations are solely focused on retention, omitting alternative
scenarios. The Arborist Report’s limitations must be acknowledged by
decision makers in the context of this request.
The conclusion is not surprising given the scope of the report, which was to
comment on the tree’s health and structural status for ongoing
maintenance.
Impacts on existing and potential development:
The Arborist’s report states that: “The subject tree lends itself to future
development of this site as the existing constraints… have created a unique
opportunity that if developed in collaboration with a suitably qualified
arboricultural consultant with experience in tree preservation of significant,
historic, veteran trees the tree can be managed and maintained through the
development process with limited loss to amenity…”
With due respect, an Arborist has no qualifications or expertise in relation to
property development and is not a land developer. The comments made in
respect to future development gives little attention to the diminished
developable site area or other factors.
As well as the costs involved in carrying out all of the recommendations
contained within the Arborist’s Report, retention of this tree significantly
impacts the development potential of this site. The total area of the site…
measures 2,035m2
. …the crown/canopy of… [the] tree extends
approximately 470m2
, representing 23% of the site. The heritage-listed
house footprint covers around 360m2
, constituting 17.7% of the site. The
combined area of the tree canopy and house footprint is conservatively
estimated at 810m2
, accounting for 40% of the site. The tree and heritage
house footprint pose a notable constraint on site development potential,
limiting the available land for development to almost half of the site.
Considering the options available to potential developers, we suggest a
balanced evaluation of the tree's value in the context of the site.
Collaboration with the City, offering incentives, and exploring a fair
compensation strategy should be part of the decision-making process.
Encouraging development in the area is seen as a means to address
vagrancy, prevent vandalism, create employment opportunities, and foster
an active commercial enterprise.
98/134
A dilemma arises regarding the owner's responsibility for the tree's
preservation, especially when considering the restriction it imposes on
rightful development. The fairness and equity of asking the owner to
undertake preservation efforts without offering compensation is
questionable. In the meantime, recommendations include providing
assistance in maintaining the tree, potentially through substantial pruning,
and regular upkeep of the hardstand areas beneath its canopy.
There is substantial damage to the retaining wall surrounding the tree and
the paving around it has been lifted causing a trip hazard. This is recognised
by the Officers’ Assessment and Heritage Reports and the Arborist Report.
However, as stated in each report, inspection was limited to a visual
inspection at ground level. No aerial or below-ground assessments have
taken place. As stated in the reports, the assessments are not conclusive,
and no assessment has been provided in relation to effects on
building/services damages.
In terms of impacts, there is no mention in any of the reports regarding the
amount of leaf and fruit fall that occurs. This affects guttering and clogs up
drains in the car park area. As well as affecting amenity in terms of
unsightliness and untidiness, the leaf and fruit fall also causes a potential
slip hazard for pedestrians walking through the car park. The fruit,
especially, tends to get squashed by car wheels.
…the Officer’s report recognises the potential of the roots to cause
disturbance through intrusion and soil displacement. However, no
investigation by the City has taken place in regard to effects on sewerage,
drainage and other below ground structures.
There have been no structural engineer reports to determine the impact the
roots are having/would have on the surrounding buildings and associated
infrastructure.
No indication of costs or responsibility for recommended actions has been
provided, hindering a comprehensive feasibility assessment. In addition,
would these actions be included as part of the current maintenance
agreement between the Council and the landowner?
Beyond contribution towards cleaning of gutters, details are sought
regarding how the Council has assisted with joint maintenance of the tree
since 1995 to satisfy the agreement that is still in place.
Heritage assessment:
The following is an important quote from the Heritage Report which should
be considered in the context of this application:
99/134
“The separation of heritage buildings, structures and artefacts from heritage
trees is in keeping with State Government policy and reflects the need for a
differing conservation approach to built heritage places and living heritage
trees that grow, age and eventually decline and die.”
The tree was excluded from the Heritage List and added to the Significant
Tree Register, acknowledging the finite lifespan of trees and the possibility
of replacement. This application aligns with the policy, allowing for delisting
as is requested.
The Heritage Report makes reference to a previous proposal to demolish the
tree in 2001 and a petition against the proposal. This petition from more
than 20 years ago featuring signatures from disparate locations, lacks
relevance to this current application.
Its acceptance as representative of the local community even at that time is
also questioned given that addresses shown on the petition included
residents from:
• all parts of the Perth Metropolitan Region (including Mullaloo,
Mirrabooka, Roleystone, Coolbinia, Marmion, Orelia, Parkwood,
Bayswater – there are too many to mention);
• places out of the Perth region including Mandurah, Toodyay, Dardanup,
Dunsborough and others;
• out of the State of Western Australia including various towns in NSW,
Queensland and South Australia; and
• out of Australia including England, New Zealand.
How is it clear from visiting the site that the heritage value of the Moreton
Bay Fig Tree has not diminished or changed?
Clarification is sought on how the heritage value has supposedly remained
unchanged since the last review in 2001.
OFFICER COMMENT
In assessing the suitability of nominated trees for inclusion and removal from the
Register, the City is guided by Local Planning Policy 2.23 – Register of Significant
Trees and Vegetation Areas (LPP2.23) and the criteria for inclusion contained
therein.
6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
The Lemon Scented Gum located at 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle is not deemed to
meet the criteria contained in LPP2.23 for classification as a significant tree. City
officers’ recommendation that the tree is not included on the Register is consistent
100/
134
with this policy; however, the landowner has highlighted that large trees in small
suburban backyards are scarce, particularly as numerous trees in the vicinity have
been removed over the course of the last 25 years, and they request elected
members to carefully consider their nomination.
195 High Street, Fremantle
The Moreton Bay Fig located at 195 High Street, Fremantle is deemed to meet the
criteria contained in LPP2.23 for classification as a significant tree. However, the
landowner would prefer that the tree is removed from the Register to address
uncertainties, financial burdens, and development constraints imposed by its
inclusion. City officers’ recommendation is consistent with LPP2.23 – that the tree
be retained on the Register – though there are several other factors to consider,
including ongoing maintenance, and these are discussed in further detail below.
Tree protection:
Local Planning Policy 1.7 – Development Exempt from Approval Under Local
Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPP1.7) sets out various uses and development that are
exempt from the requirement to obtain development approval under Local Planning
Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), including:
31. Removal of trees or vegetation areas except where those which are
identified on the Register of Significant Trees or Vegetation Areas, or
where required to be retained on a site through a condition of
development approval.
Therefore, the inclusion of the tree on the Register serves as the only form of
protection that will ensure its preservation. The landowner has suggested that the
tree be removed from the Register and that the City provide incentives and support
to encourage any prospective developer to retain the tree. However, were the tree
to be removed from the Register, there would no regulatory impediment preventing
its immediate removal, meaning that the tree's preservation is entirely contingent
upon its inclusion on the Register. Furthermore, the City currently has no
mechanism in place to incentivise the retention of the tree. This would necessitate
the amendment or development of a Local Planning Policy, or an amendment to
LPS4, which would have to be carefully considered and would take some time to
establish.
Redevelopment:
The effect of the tree as a development constraint is not a consideration of its
inclusion on the Register. However, it is acknowledged that any future development
proposals would have to consider the tree in their design, as long as it remains on
the Register. It must also be noted that a heritage-listed house (Category 2 on the
City’s Heritage List) stands on the western half of the site, which would almost
certainly have to remain as well. It is set back approximately 16 metres from the
street, meaning that the location of any new development proposed on the site
101/
134
would have to be carefully considered for this reason alone. Furthermore, if the tree
is to be retained on the Register, the arborist’s report mentions the possibility of
strategically pruning the tree to facilitate further development, without
compromising its integrity.
The financial ramifications of the tree’s retention are not a valid planning
consideration, nor a consideration under LPP2.23; however, Council may take those
matters into account in its decision-making.
In view of the above, City officers further recommend that Council make a
commitment to revisit its position upon receipt of a formal redevelopment
application for the site, provided that any proposal demonstrates other positive
heritage outcomes and/or community benefit. Although it is acknowledged that this
does not provide the level of certainty that the landowner seeks, it is hoped that it
will at least provide an assurance that Council is willing to consider any proposal for
redevelopment of the site in a holistic manner and without prejudice.
Maintenance:
The planning framework for the registration of significant trees and vegetation
areas, particularly LPP2.23, seeks to strike a balance between recognising
trees/vegetation worthy of protection and allowing for specimens to be maintained
without requiring further approvals. This is not only to ensure the ongoing health
and longevity of registered trees/vegetation, but also to enable safe and responsible
management by their owners, with the policy allowing for appropriate pruning or
other maintenance.
The City's Parks and Landscapes team undertakes some maintenance associated
with the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street, Fremantle, amounting to a monthly
expenditure of $154, or $1,848 per annum, for gutter and roof cleaning.
Additionally, the car park on 195 High Street is swept on Mondays and the
surrounding paving is washed throughout the year as part of routine operations.
Further, the City conducts regular inspections of the tree, with notable proactive
measures taken in the past few years that involved pruning limbs that were
encroaching upon the roofline of the adjoining buildings, undertaking dead wooding,
and lifting branches over the adjacent footpath and roadway.
The landowner has questioned whether they should be responsible for tree
preservation, given the development restrictions that it imparts, without some form
of compensation. They have suggested that the City assist in general tree
maintenance, substantial pruning, and upkeep of the surrounding paths and car
park.
As noted in the Financial Implications section above, it is understood that the City
has been helping with the management of the Moreton Bay Fig, predominantly
through weekly sweeping, since an agreement with the landowners in 1995. Despite
102/
134
the absence of a formalised management plan and therefore the difficulties in
estimating costs over time, the maintenance of the tree is already supported by the
City. However, should Council wish to offer additional support, City officers would
suggest that a management plan is prepared with indicative costings and reported
back to Council in April 2024.
Notwithstanding, it is recommended that Council encourage the landowner to
prepare a tree maintenance plan for the Moreton Bay Fig, setting out future
maintenance requirements, including pruning, obstacle clearance and dead wood
removal. Example templates for such a plan are available and can be provided to
the landowner.
Registration of the tree:
When the Register of Significant Tree and Vegetation Areas was established, it was
done by placing those trees that were included on the City’s Heritage List onto the
Register by notice under Clause 13A of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4,
which includes a 21-day community engagement period. The City wrote to the
owner of 195 High Street, Fremantle at their nominated postal address, to the effect
that the tree was to be moved from the Heritage List to the new Register of
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas.
At its Ordinary Meeting on 27 February 2019, Council subsequently adopted LPP2.23
and authorised revisions to be undertaken to the City’s Heritage List as follows:
2. Adopt Local Planning Policy 2.23 – ‘Register of Significant Trees and
Vegetation Areas’, with modification, in accordance with Planning and
Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2
part 2 clause 4…
3. Authorise for the following revisions to be undertaken to the City’s
Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory:
(a) delete the following established trees and vegetation areas from the
Heritage List and place them on the Register of Significant Trees
and Vegetation Areas:
• Tree, 11 Harvest Road, North Fremantle
• Trees, 15 Harvest Road, North Fremantle
• Tree Grove, 21 Harvest Road, North Fremantle
• Trees, 45 Henderson Street, Fremantle
• Moreton Bay Fig, 195 High Street, Fremantle
While LPP2.23 now requires any nomination for inclusion of a tree on the Register to
be authorised by the owner(s) of the land on which the tree is located, LPP2.23 had
not yet come into effect when the trees from the Heritage List were added to the
103/
134
Register, meaning that there was no requirement for authorisation by the
landowners.
Annual consideration of nominations:
The City collects nominations for the addition of trees to the Register and requests
for removal of trees from the Register throughout the year and considers them
together on an annual basis. The submission from the owner of 195 High Street,
Fremantle was received by the City in February 2023 and the annual update process
was initiated in April 2023. The procedure for administering the Register of
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas states that:
A report on trees and vegetation areas requested for removal, along with
any public submissions received will be submitted to Council annually
(generally between February and April) for a decision on their removal
from the Register.
However, the significant tree review process for 2023 has extended well beyond the
initially projected timeline, primarily owing to challenges in procuring the necessary
expertise from both internal and external sources for tree assessments. City officers
are now acutely aware of this and will take account of it when undertaking any
future tree protection initiatives.
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple majority required.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
Council:
1. Notes the submissions received in relation to the proposed inclusion of
the Lemon Scented Gum at 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle on the
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register and the proposed
removal of the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street, Fremantle from the
same Register, as outlined in the report and attachments.
2. Does not include the Lemon Scented Gum located at No. 6 Douglas
Street, Fremantle on the Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas
Register.
3. Retains the Moreton Bay Fig located at 195 High Street, Fremantle on
the Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register.
4. Advises the owner of 195 High Street, Fremantle that the City
encourages them to prepare a tree maintenance plan for the Moreton
Bay Fig setting out future maintenance requirements, including
104/
134
pruning, obstacle clearance and dead wood removal, noting the
availability of example templates.
5. Advises the owner of 195 High Street, Fremantle that while the City
will continue to encourage the retention of the Moreton Bay Fig,
Council will revisit its position on the tree’s inclusion on the Significant
Trees and Vegetation Areas Register upon receipt of a formal
redevelopment application for the site, provided that any proposal
demonstrates other positive heritage outcomes and/or community
benefit.

Fremantle City Council
Ordinary Meeting of Council
Minutes, 14 February 2024
pp. 67-89

C2402-5 NOMINATIONS FOR THE REGISTER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES
2023 – 195 HIGH STREET, 6 DOUGLAS STREET – OUTCOMES
OF CONSULTATION
Meeting date: 14 February 2024
Responsible officer: Manager Strategic Planning and City Design
Voting requirements: Simple Majority
Attachments: 1. Nomination for addition – 6 Douglas Street,
Fremantle
2. Request for removal – 195 High Street,
Fremantle
3. Assessment – 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
4. Assessment – 195 High Street, Fremantle
5. Heritage Assessment – 195 High Street,
Fremantle
6. Independent arborist report - 195 High
Street, Fremantle
7. Submission – 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
8. Submission – 195 High Street, Fremantle
SUMMARY
In 2023, the City received two nominations pertaining to the Register of
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas (the Register):
• the inclusion of a Lemon Scented Gum, 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle,
• the removal of a Moreton Bay Fig, 195 High Street, Fremantle.
The City subsequently conducted assessments of the significance of each
tree, including a heritage assessment, and commissioned an independent
arborist’s report for the tree located at 195 High Street, Fremantle.
Following these assessments, the City engaged with the landowners in
accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Local
Planning Policy 2.23 – Register of Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas
(LPP2.23). In response, both landowners have provided submissions in
relation to their respective trees.
This report recommends that Council does not include the Lemon Scented
Gum at 6 Douglas Street on the Register, but retains the Moreton Bay Fig at
195 High Street on the Register with a commitment to revisit its position
upon receipt of a formal redevelopment application for the site, provided
that any proposal demonstrates other positive heritage outcomes and/or
community benefit.
68/169
BACKGROUND
In 2023, the City received two submissions pertaining to its Register of Significant
Trees and Vegetation Areas: one for the inclusion of a Lemon Scented Gum at 6
Douglas Street, Fremantle, and another for the removal of a Moreton Bay Fig at 195
High Street, Fremantle.
6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
The landowner has nominated a Lemon Scented Gum for inclusion on the Register
of Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas. The tree is approximately 20 metres in
height, 2.1 metres in circumference and 40 years old. The landowner considers that
the tree has Visual/Aesthetic/Landmark, Heritage and Ecological Value, per the
assessment criteria set out in LPP2.23.
The landowner states that tree is very large for a private garden in Fremantle and
one of the largest in the area. The tree provides habitat and natural shade and is
much loved by Douglas Street residents.
See Attachment 1 for the full nomination.
195 High Street, Fremantle
The landowner has requested the removal of a Moreton Bay Fig Tree from the
Register of Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas. The landowner states that they
have owned 195 High Street for 60 years and that the tree's presence is deterring
potential buyers, creating financial hardship:
This property has been on the market for a number of years and each time
an entity shows interest, they are put off by the registration of the tree on
the Significant Tree Register. This coupled with the downturn in commercial
economy in the City of Fremantle in general, is causing me great financial
hardship.
The request notes that the tree poses other issues, including falling fruit and
branches, which cause damage to infrastructure, clog drains, and create hazards:
Although in itself, it is a lovely tree, unfortunately it has no place on an
inner-city commercial property.
It constantly drops fruit and small branches (a few years ago it actually
dropped a very large limb that could have had serious consequences to
person and property). The fruit and small branches clog up the gutters and
drains on buildings and soak wells. They dirty the cars parked on the site
and cause a slipping hazard to pedestrians.
69/169
I find it difficult to accept that I am forced to keep this tree when the
Fremantle Council was allowed to remove most of their Moreton Bay Figs in
St Johns Square for redevelopment.
This tree is in very close proximity to retaining walls, buildings and other
infrastructure.
The landowner questions how the tree was registered without consent and argues
that the proximity to buildings and infrastructure justifies its removal under local
planning policies.
Additionally, the tree's impact on development potential is highlighted, with claims
that it impedes the site's commercial viability:
• The development potential of the site is severely restricted and prospects
for retaining the tree in future development is very low.
• The tree is directly abutting buildings and infrastructure and has already
caused some damage.
• The tree is not within an area of ecological value or in a biodiversity
corridor.
The submission proposes removal from the Register to facilitate property sale and
suggests alternative options like transplanting the tree or using its seeds for
propagation in a more suitable community parkland setting.
See Attachment 2 for the full request.
Assessment Process
The City’s Local Planning Policy 2.23 – Register of Significant Trees and Vegetation
Areas (LPP2.23) provides criteria for inclusion on the Significant Trees and
Vegetation Areas Register. Following the two submissions, the City has conducted
assessments on the significance of each tree following the process provided under
LPP2.23. A heritage assessment was also undertaken, and an independent arborist’s
report commissioned for the tree located at 195 High Street. The assessments and
arborist’s report are provided in Attachments 4-6, with summaries provided below:
6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
Significant Tree Assessment:
Lemon-scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora)
Condition:
• The tree is a healthy specimen with ongoing viability.
• It is not a species considered a weed of national interest.
70/169
Significance Assessment:
i. Botanical/Horticultural Value:
• The tree is not of species rarity and has little horticultural or genetic
significance.
• It is not of unique size, lacks scientific value, and is not endemic to Western
Australia.
ii. Visual/Aesthetic/Landmark Value:
• The specimen is species-typical and does not represent a significant
landmark.
• City officers do not consider it to have significant visual or aesthetic
qualities.
iii. Heritage Value:
• The specimen has no known heritage value.
iv. Ecological Value:
• The tree provides habitat for birds but does not have nesting hollows
identified.
• It has no pre-European connection or ecological significance and does not
provide substantial canopy cover.
v. Potential of a Juvenile Tree:
• Not applicable; no comment provided.
Additional Considerations:
• Ongoing viability is assessed considering development potential, proximity to
buildings/infrastructure, impact on neighbouring properties, and root structure
attributes.
• Trees with limited prospect of long-term retention or lifespan will not be
included.
• Ecological value assessment considers proximity to recognised ecological
linkages or biodiversity corridors.
See Attachment 3 for the full assessment report.
195 High Street, Fremantle
Significant Tree Assessment:
Moreton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla)
• Height (approximate): 27+ metres
• Girth 1.4 metres above ground: three metres
71/169
• Age (approximate): 100+ years
Condition and Ongoing Viability:
• The tree is a healthy specimen with ongoing viability.
• Vitality is demonstrated through canopy density, foliage size, and colour.
• No observable decline patterns; active wound wood development.
• Historical removal of large diameter stems for building clearance, with regions of
decay.
• Significant below-ground root system, impacting infrastructure; observed
damage to walls.
• Approximately 100 years old, with a main stem diameter exceeding three
metres and a crown of approximately 630 square metres.
• Heritage genetic significance related to local nurseryman Philip Webster, linked
to the Proclamation Tree.
Significance Assessment:
i. Botanical/Horticultural Value:
• Little horticultural or genetic significance in WA.
• Not considered a remnant native to WA.
• Outstanding for size and location but falls short of true-to-species potential in
urban confines.
ii. Visual/Aesthetic/Landmark Value:
• Unique location in a confined urban setting.
• High contribution to the visual landscape, outstanding for size and location.
• Limited defining visual features; better than average for an urban setting.
iii. Heritage Value:
• Heritage genetic significance linked to Philip Webster, a local nurseryman.
• Considered the progenitor of many Moreton Bay Fig trees in Fremantle.
• A separate heritage report provides a comprehensive assessment.
iv. Ecological Value:
• Limited importance as a source of seed or propagating material.
• Not a remnant native to Western Australia.
• Provides significant urban canopy cover.
• Classified as a reproductive host for Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer.
v. Potential of a Juvenile Tree:
• Not applicable; no comment provided.
72/169
Ongoing Viability Considerations:
• Development potential comes with risks due to confined space and large root
structures.
• Current damage to infrastructure; potential for disturbance to above-ground
structures and below-ground urban structures.
• Preliminary assessments indicate tolerable risk thresholds, but further, in-depth
assessments are needed.
• Tree owner responsibility for monitoring and maintenance.
Ecological Value Assessment:
• Proximity to recognised ecological linkages or biodiversity corridors is
considered.
See Attachment 4 for the full assessment report.
Heritage Assessment:
Background:
• Moreton Bay Fig Tree, approximately 130 years old, located at 195 High Street,
Fremantle.
• Planted by Fremantle nurseryman Phillip Webster in the late 1880s.
• Significant heritage recognition since the 1970s, listed on various heritage
registers.
• Council agreement in 1995 with property owners for joint tree maintenance.
• In 2001, an application to fell the tree was refused by the Council due to its
significant amenity value. This included considerable public comment received
against this proposal including a petition with 499 signatures and 11 individually
written submissions.
• In 2019, the tree was moved to the Significant Tree Register, aligning with State
Government policy.
Heritage Comments:
• The heritage value of the Moreton Bay Fig Tree remains unchanged since the
2001 review.
• The tree continues to be of significance to Fremantle.
• Conservation approach for trees differs from built heritage due to the evolving
nature of trees.
• The finite lifespan of trees may necessitate removal as part of care and
maintenance.
• Some heritage-protected Moreton Bay Fig Trees in Fremantle were removed due
to declining health.
73/169
• The arboricultural report confirms the good health of the tree at 195 High
Street.
• Although its exact lifespan is uncertain, the tree is considered an exceptional
specimen.
Recommendations:
• The heritage value of the tree has not diminished from when it was last
reviewed in 2001, and it remains significant to Fremantle.
• Continuous maintenance and monitoring by an Arboriculturist is recommended.
• If the tree significantly declines, does not respond to treatment, and reaches the
end of its life, removal can be considered.
• If removal occurs, material should be collected for propagation, and a
replacement tree can be planted on-site.
See Attachment 5 for the full heritage assessment.
Independent arborist’s report
This Preliminary VTA (Visual Tree Assessment) Report was prepared on 30
November 2023. A site visit inspection was conducted visually on 19 October 2023,
without below ground or aerial examination. The report outlines the tree's health,
structural status, and its potential for retention in the face of future development.
The report’s executive summary indicates that the Ficus macrophylla has high
retention value, displaying good health, seasonal growth, and a useful life
expectancy of over 40 years. Structural issues like previous pruning, stem failures,
and crossing stems can be addressed via ongoing tree management. The tree's root
system, impacted by various factors, suggests it can be retained with careful
planning.
The report emphasises the need for collaboration with arboriculture experts for
future development. It lists considerations such as soil level changes, service
alignments, building alignments, and canopy dimensions. Preliminary tree
preservation considerations highlight the importance of protecting the Tree
Protection Zone (TPZ) during construction, avoiding disturbance to roots, and
implementing remedial measures.
To ensure the tree's retention, a comprehensive Tree Retention Plan is
recommended, involving expert input, protection of the TPZ, and measures to
minimise root and canopy impact. The report suggests selective pruning,
supplementary watering, and potential remedial measures for both canopy and root
zone. It also stresses the importance of ongoing arboricultural inspections during
construction.
74/169
The report concludes that the tree's retention is feasible with timely and appropriate
implementation of recommendations. It underscores the environmental, habitat,
aesthetic, and amenity benefits provided by the tree, advocating for its
preservation. The proposed management plan includes monitoring schedules,
remedial pruning, and ongoing assessments for long-term health and safety. The
recommendations are categorised into short-term, medium-term, and longer-term
actions, emphasising the need for collaboration, an Arboricultural Management Plan
(AMP), and ongoing monitoring to ensure the tree's longevity.
See Attachment 6 for the full independent arborist’s report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The City's Parks and Landscapes team undertakes some maintenance associated
with the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street, Fremantle, amounting to a monthly
expenditure of $154, or $1,848 per annum, for gutter and roof cleaning.
Additionally, the car park on 195 High Street is swept on Mondays and the
surrounding paving is washed throughout the year as part of routine operations.
Further, the City conducts regular inspections of the tree, with notable proactive
measures taken in the past few years that involved pruning limbs that encroached
upon the roofline of the adjoining buildings, undertaking dead wooding, and lifting
branches over the adjacent footpath and roadway. Unfortunately, the exact costing
of this additional maintenance is unavailable.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Local Planning Scheme No. 4 makes provision for the establishment of a register of
significant trees and vegetation areas. Local Planning Policy 1.7 (effectively)
requires approval for removal of registered trees. Criteria for assessing nominations
and removal of trees from the Register are addressed in Local Planning Policy 2.23.
Private property rights between neighbours apply independently of the scheme and
policy provisions. Registration of a tree does not remove either the rights or
obligations of neighbours, nor does it alter maintenance or responsible management
responsibilities for it.
Under the Local Government Act 1995, Schedule 3.1, the City has the ability to
respond to safety concerns over trees on private property through the issuing of a
notice to the relevant property owner(s).
CONSULTATION
The owners of each tree were provided with the respective assessments and other
applicable reports for comment. At the conclusion of the engagement period, a
submission had been received from each landowner (the submission on 195 High
Street, Fremantle has been summarised for brevity):
75/169
6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
I note that you do not give the height of the tree in your report.
In the built-up area of Fremantle North of South Street there are very, very
few trees as large as this in the small suburban yards and town houses. In
this context the tree is very significant.
You state the canopy cover is not significant and yet it shades several back
gardens in summer depending on time of day.
In the 25 years I have lived here I have seen many trees removed.
Given all this I would respectfully ask yourself and the elected members to
reconsider your decision.
195 High Street, Fremantle
Thank you for the opportunity to address the assessment reports concerning
the application to remove the listing of the Moreton Bay fig tree at 195 High
Street Fremantle (ID 19-04) from the Register of Significant Trees and
Vegetation Areas.
Firstly, we acknowledge the significance of this magnificent tree, which has
been a cherished part of our family's property for many years. The
emotional connection to the tree is profound, and it is not without careful
consideration that we approach the Council seeking its removal from the
Register.
We understand the importance of preserving significant trees, but we also
believe that, in certain cases, the well-being and quality of life of property
owners should be given due consideration. Our family has a longstanding
history with this property, dating back to the 1960s when it was purchased…
and developed as a pharmacy.
The property, acquired long before any restrictions were imposed, has been
subject to increasing limitations over time. The current restrictions, including
the heritage listing of the house and the tree on the Register, significantly
impact the development potential of the site. The combined area of the tree
canopy and house footprint constitutes approximately 40% of the property,
creating constraints that affect almost half of the site.
We wish to highlight the financial implications and challenges imposed by
these restrictions, particularly in the context of the current commercial
environment in Fremantle. The Arborist report recommends extensive efforts
to ensure the tree's protection and health, further adding to the burden on
the landowner.
76/169
We propose the removal of the tree from the Register not as a desire to
eliminate the tree but to provide future landowners with the flexibility to
assess its feasibility within their development plans. This would enable a
balanced decision, and the Council could collaborate with potential
developers, offering incentives to retain the tree if desired.
We believe the Council should proactively support and promote the
development of the City. Failure to encourage and enable full utilisation the
site increases the likelihood of vandalism and vagrancy, posing a threat to
its well-being. Furthermore, there is a growing risk of being unable to
sustain the upkeep of the heritage house if development is constrained.
Should the tree be considered for future removal, inspiration can be taken
from this tree by propagating and planting it in a parkland setting, creating
a place where people can find shade for relaxation or children can engage in
climbing. We envision this transformation could take place in the four-square
park within the same locality, fostering a communal setting that encourages
shared experiences. Accompanying the tree with a plaque, narrating its
story and significance, and incorporating interpretation elements would
enhance the overall experience for visitors.
It is requested that Council consider the human aspect of this request,
recognising the long-standing contributions of the property owners to the
community. We respectfully request that the Council re-evaluates the listing,
taking into account the challenges posed by the tree's current location and
its impact on the property's development potential and risks posed to
infrastructure and persons.
In summary, this application to remove the Moreton Bay fig tree is grounded
in the necessity to address uncertainties, financial burdens, and
development constraints imposed by its inclusion in the Register. We
respectfully request a thorough reconsideration, considering the points
raised in this response and appreciate your courage, empathy, and respect
in considering a favourable resolution that takes into consideration the
unique circumstances of this property and its owners.
The submission on the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street is supplemented by a
detailed document addressing many aspects of the assessment, including the
heritage assessment and independent arborist’s report. Below is a summary of the
points contained therein:
Significance and registration of the tree:
The tree's listing in the Register is based on the assumption that it is the
progenitor of other significant trees in Fremantle. However, the absence of
substantiated evidence supporting this claim raises uncertainty about the
tree's heritage significance, and it is recommended to exclude this criterion
until concrete evidence is presented.
77/169
In accordance with LPP 2.23, the nomination of trees must be authorised by
the landowner. As has been communicated several times with staff at the
Council, we have not authorised the listing, making it unauthorised under
the current policy.
An application for removal was submitted in February 2023, expecting
consideration by April 2023 in accordance with LPP 2.23. However, staff
communication suggests a potential delay until February or March 2024. The
delay is unacceptable, causing stress, financial repercussions, and negatively
affecting the property's marketability.
It is agreed that the tree contributes to the visual landscape. However, this
is due to its size and the fact that this is an inner-city commercial property.
It therefore obviously stands out as would any tree on a private property in
the commercial area of the City.
Independent arborist’s report:
The Arborist Report indicates that the tree is currently in good health;
however, as is mentioned in all of the reports, it has a limited lifespan and
will eventually decline and die.
It is suggested that the tree may live for another 40 years; however, this
would need to be nurtured, cared for and protected to a great extent for this
to be a possibility. The Arborist is recommending a large scope of work
which is beyond the means of the landowner at this time.
As stated in the Assessment Report, the tree is not a remnant native to
Western Australia and is not of particular resistance to disease.
Please explain why the arborist’s report has made no reference to the fact
that the Shot Hole Borer infestation in the City and surrounds is very
susceptible to Moreton Bay Fig species, and the implications this has on the
future of the tree.
No reports have identified the presence of any significant wildlife habitats.
Whilst heat island effect reduction is mentioned in the Arborist Report, this
mainly relates to land within private property. A building with verandahs and
awnings could offer similar shade.
The Arborist Report, though long-awaited, has limitations in its scope.
The report had a scope biased on the tree being retained rather than being
objective and open to its retention and/or removal from the register. Why
did it not include investigating the current extent of the root system, and the
78/169
likely full extent of the root system should it remain and its effect on
services and the foundations of the heritage house on the property? Please
explain why the scope was limited as it did not provide any other advice
than how to retain and maintain the tree.
The Arborist Report lacks below ground and aerial inspections, and its
recommendations are solely focused on retention, omitting alternative
scenarios. The Arborist Report’s limitations must be acknowledged by
decision makers in the context of this request.
The conclusion is not surprising given the scope of the report, which was to
comment on the tree’s health and structural status for ongoing
maintenance.
Impacts on existing and potential development:
The Arborist’s report states that: “The subject tree lends itself to future
development of this site as the existing constraints… have created a unique
opportunity that if developed in collaboration with a suitably qualified
arboricultural consultant with experience in tree preservation of significant,
historic, veteran trees the tree can be managed and maintained through the
development process with limited loss to amenity…”
With due respect, an Arborist has no qualifications or expertise in relation to
property development and is not a land developer. The comments made in
respect to future development gives little attention to the diminished
developable site area or other factors.
As well as the costs involved in carrying out all of the recommendations
contained within the Arborist’s Report, retention of this tree significantly
impacts the development potential of this site. The total area of the site…
measures 2,035m2 …the crown/canopy of… [the] tree extends approximately 470m2
, representing 23% of the site. The heritage-listed
house footprint covers around 360m2
, constituting 17.7% of the site. The
combined area of the tree canopy and house footprint is conservatively
estimated at 810m2
, accounting for 40% of the site. The tree and heritage
house footprint pose a notable constraint on site development potential,
limiting the available land for development to almost half of the site.
Considering the options available to potential developers, we suggest a
balanced evaluation of the tree's value in the context of the site.
Collaboration with the City, offering incentives, and exploring a fair
compensation strategy should be part of the decision-making process.
Encouraging development in the area is seen as a means to address
vagrancy, prevent vandalism, create employment opportunities, and foster
an active commercial enterprise.
79/169
A dilemma arises regarding the owner's responsibility for the tree's
preservation, especially when considering the restriction it imposes on
rightful development. The fairness and equity of asking the owner to
undertake preservation efforts without offering compensation is
questionable. In the meantime, recommendations include providing
assistance in maintaining the tree, potentially through substantial pruning,
and regular upkeep of the hardstand areas beneath its canopy.
There is substantial damage to the retaining wall surrounding the tree and
the paving around it has been lifted causing a trip hazard. This is recognised
by the Officers’ Assessment and Heritage Reports and the Arborist Report.
However, as stated in each report, inspection was limited to a visual
inspection at ground level. No aerial or below-ground assessments have
taken place. As stated in the reports, the assessments are not conclusive,
and no assessment has been provided in relation to effects on
building/services damages.
In terms of impacts, there is no mention in any of the reports regarding the
amount of leaf and fruit fall that occurs. This affects guttering and clogs up
drains in the car park area. As well as affecting amenity in terms of
unsightliness and untidiness, the leaf and fruit fall also causes a potential
slip hazard for pedestrians walking through the car park. The fruit,
especially, tends to get squashed by car wheels.
…the Officer’s report recognises the potential of the roots to cause
disturbance through intrusion and soil displacement. However, no
investigation by the City has taken place in regard to effects on sewerage,
drainage and other below ground structures.
There have been no structural engineer reports to determine the impact the
roots are having/would have on the surrounding buildings and associated
infrastructure.
No indication of costs or responsibility for recommended actions has been
provided, hindering a comprehensive feasibility assessment. In addition,
would these actions be included as part of the current maintenance
agreement between the Council and the landowner?
Beyond contribution towards cleaning of gutters, details are sought
regarding how the Council has assisted with joint maintenance of the tree
since 1995 to satisfy the agreement that is still in place.
Heritage assessment:
The following is an important quote from the Heritage Report which should
be considered in the context of this application:
80/169
“The separation of heritage buildings, structures and artefacts from heritage
trees is in keeping with State Government policy and reflects the need for a
differing conservation approach to built heritage places and living heritage
trees that grow, age and eventually decline and die.”
The tree was excluded from the Heritage List and added to the Significant
Tree Register, acknowledging the finite lifespan of trees and the possibility
of replacement. This application aligns with the policy, allowing for delisting
as is requested.
The Heritage Report makes reference to a previous proposal to demolish the
tree in 2001 and a petition against the proposal. This petition from more
than 20 years ago featuring signatures from disparate locations, lacks
relevance to this current application.
Its acceptance as representative of the local community even at that time is
also questioned given that addresses shown on the petition included
residents from:
• all parts of the Perth Metropolitan Region (including Mullaloo,
Mirrabooka, Roleystone, Coolbinia, Marmion, Orelia, Parkwood,
Bayswater – there are too many to mention);
• places out of the Perth region including Mandurah, Toodyay, Dardanup,
Dunsborough and others;
• out of the State of Western Australia including various towns in NSW,
Queensland and South Australia; and
• out of Australia including England, New Zealand.
How is it clear from visiting the site that the heritage value of the Moreton
Bay Fig Tree has not diminished or changed?
Clarification is sought on how the heritage value has supposedly remained
unchanged since the last review in 2001.
OFFICER COMMENT
In assessing the suitability of nominated trees for inclusion and removal from the
Register, the City is guided by Local Planning Policy 2.23 – Register of Significant
Trees and Vegetation Areas (LPP2.23) and the criteria for inclusion contained
therein.
6 Douglas Street, Fremantle
The Lemon Scented Gum located at 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle is not deemed to
meet the criteria contained in LPP2.23 for classification as a significant tree. City
officers’ recommendation that the tree is not included on the Register is consistent
81/169
with this policy; however, the landowner has highlighted that large trees in small
suburban backyards are scarce, particularly as numerous trees in the vicinity have
been removed over the course of the last 25 years, and they request elected
members to carefully consider their nomination.
195 High Street, Fremantle
The Moreton Bay Fig located at 195 High Street, Fremantle is deemed to meet the
criteria contained in LPP2.23 for classification as a significant tree. However, the
landowner would prefer that the tree is removed from the Register to address
uncertainties, financial burdens, and development constraints imposed by its
inclusion. City officers’ recommendation is consistent with LPP2.23 – that the tree
be retained on the Register – though there are several other factors to consider,
including ongoing maintenance, and these are discussed in further detail below.
Tree protection:
Local Planning Policy 1.7 – Development Exempt from Approval Under Local
Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPP1.7) sets out various uses and development that are
exempt from the requirement to obtain development approval under Local Planning
Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), including:
31. Removal of trees or vegetation areas except where those which are
identified on the Register of Significant Trees or Vegetation Areas, or
where required to be retained on a site through a condition of
development approval.
Therefore, the inclusion of the tree on the Register serves as the only form of
protection that will ensure its preservation. The landowner has suggested that the
tree be removed from the Register and that the City provide incentives and support
to encourage any prospective developer to retain the tree. However, were the tree
to be removed from the Register, there would no regulatory impediment preventing
its immediate removal, meaning that the tree's preservation is entirely contingent
upon its inclusion on the Register. Furthermore, the City currently has no
mechanism in place to incentivise the retention of the tree. This would necessitate
the amendment or development of a Local Planning Policy, or an amendment to
LPS4, which would have to be carefully considered and would take some time to
establish.
Redevelopment:
The effect of the tree as a development constraint is not a consideration of its
inclusion on the Register. However, it is acknowledged that any future development
proposals would have to consider the tree in their design, as long as it remains on
the Register. It must also be noted that a heritage-listed house (Category 2 on the
City’s Heritage List) stands on the western half of the site, which would almost
certainly have to remain as well. It is set back approximately 16 metres from the
street, meaning that the location of any new development proposed on the site
82/169
would have to be carefully considered for this reason alone. Furthermore, if the tree
is to be retained on the Register, the arborist’s report mentions the possibility of
strategically pruning the tree to facilitate further development, without
compromising its integrity.
The financial ramifications of the tree’s retention are not a valid planning
consideration, nor a consideration under LPP2.23; however, Council may take those
matters into account in its decision-making.
In view of the above, City officers further recommend that Council make a
commitment to revisit its position upon receipt of a formal redevelopment
application for the site, provided that any proposal demonstrates other positive
heritage outcomes and/or community benefit. Although it is acknowledged that this
does not provide the level of certainty that the landowner seeks, it is hoped that it
will at least provide an assurance that Council is willing to consider any proposal for
redevelopment of the site in a holistic manner and without prejudice.
Maintenance:
The planning framework for the registration of significant trees and vegetation
areas, particularly LPP2.23, seeks to strike a balance between recognising
trees/vegetation worthy of protection and allowing for specimens to be maintained
without requiring further approvals. This is not only to ensure the ongoing health
and longevity of registered trees/vegetation, but also to enable safe and responsible
management by their owners, with the policy allowing for appropriate pruning or
other maintenance.
The City's Parks and Landscapes team undertakes some maintenance associated
with the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street, Fremantle, amounting to a monthly
expenditure of $154, or $1,848 per annum, for gutter and roof cleaning.
Additionally, the car park on 195 High Street is swept on Mondays and the
surrounding paving is washed throughout the year as part of routine operations.
Further, the City conducts regular inspections of the tree, with notable proactive
measures taken in the past few years that involved pruning limbs that were
encroaching upon the roofline of the adjoining buildings, undertaking dead wooding,
and lifting branches over the adjacent footpath and roadway.
The landowner has questioned whether they should be responsible for tree
preservation, given the development restrictions that it imparts, without some form
of compensation. They have suggested that the City assist in general tree
maintenance, substantial pruning, and upkeep of the surrounding paths and car
park.
As noted in the Financial Implications section above, it is understood that the City
has been helping with the management of the Moreton Bay Fig, predominantly
through weekly sweeping, since an agreement with the landowners in 1995. Despite
83/169
the absence of a formalised management plan and therefore the difficulties in
estimating costs over time, the maintenance of the tree is already supported by the
City. However, should Council wish to offer additional support, City officers would
suggest that a management plan is prepared with indicative costings and reported
back to Council in April 2024.
Notwithstanding, it is recommended that Council encourage the landowner to
prepare a tree maintenance plan for the Moreton Bay Fig, setting out future
maintenance requirements, including pruning, obstacle clearance and dead wood
removal. Example templates for such a plan are available and can be provided to
the landowner.
Registration of the tree:
When the Register of Significant Tree and Vegetation Areas was established, it was
done by placing those trees that were included on the City’s Heritage List onto the
Register by notice under Clause 13A of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4,
which includes a 21-day community engagement period. The City wrote to the
owner of 195 High Street, Fremantle at their nominated postal address, to the effect
that the tree was to be moved from the Heritage List to the new Register of
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas.
At its Ordinary Meeting on 27 February 2019, Council subsequently adopted LPP2.23
and authorised revisions to be undertaken to the City’s Heritage List as follows:
2. Adopt Local Planning Policy 2.23 – ‘Register of Significant Trees and
Vegetation Areas’, with modification, in accordance with Planning and
Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2
part 2 clause 4…
3. Authorise for the following revisions to be undertaken to the City’s
Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory:
(a) delete the following established trees and vegetation areas from the
Heritage List and place them on the Register of Significant Trees
and Vegetation Areas:
• Tree, 11 Harvest Road, North Fremantle
• Trees, 15 Harvest Road, North Fremantle
• Tree Grove, 21 Harvest Road, North Fremantle
• Trees, 45 Henderson Street, Fremantle
• Moreton Bay Fig, 195 High Street, Fremantle
While LPP2.23 now requires any nomination for inclusion of a tree on the Register to
be authorised by the owner(s) of the land on which the tree is located, LPP2.23 had
not yet come into effect when the trees from the Heritage List were added to the
84/169
Register, meaning that there was no requirement for authorisation by the
landowners.
Annual consideration of nominations:
The City collects nominations for the addition of trees to the Register and requests
for removal of trees from the Register throughout the year and considers them
together on an annual basis. The submission from the owner of 195 High Street,
Fremantle was received by the City in February 2023 and the annual update process
was initiated in April 2023. The procedure for administering the Register of
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas states that:
A report on trees and vegetation areas requested for removal, along with
any public submissions received will be submitted to Council annually
(generally between February and April) for a decision on their removal
from the Register.
However, the significant tree review process for 2023 has extended well beyond the
initially projected timeline, primarily owing to challenges in procuring the necessary
expertise from both internal and external sources for tree assessments. City officers
are now acutely aware of this and will take account of it when undertaking any
future tree protection initiatives.
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple majority required.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
Moved: Cr Fedele Camarda Seconded: Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
Council:
1. Notes the submissions received in relation to the proposed inclusion of
the Lemon Scented Gum at 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle on the
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register and the proposed
removal of the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street, Fremantle from the
same Register, as outlined in the report and attachments.
2. Does not include the Lemon Scented Gum located at No. 6 Douglas
Street, Fremantle on the Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas
Register.
3. Retains the Moreton Bay Fig located at 195 High Street, Fremantle on
the Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register.
85/169
4. Advises the owner of 195 High Street, Fremantle that the City
encourages them to prepare a tree maintenance plan for the Moreton
Bay Fig setting out future maintenance requirements, including
pruning, obstacle clearance and dead wood removal, noting the
availability of example templates.
5. Advises the owner of 195 High Street, Fremantle that while the City
will continue to encourage the retention of the Moreton Bay Fig,
Council will revisit its position on the tree’s inclusion on the Significant
Trees and Vegetation Areas Register upon receipt of a formal
redevelopment application for the site, provided that any proposal
demonstrates other positive heritage outcomes and/or community
benefit.
COUNCIL DECISION ITEM C2402-5
(Officer’s recommendation)
Moved: Cr Fedele Camarda Seconded: Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
Council:
1. Notes the submissions received in relation to the proposed inclusion of
the Lemon Scented Gum at 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle on the
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register and the proposed
removal of the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street, Fremantle from the
same Register, as outlined in the report and attachments.
Carried: 8/0
Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge, Cr Jenny , Cr Andrew Sullivan,
Cr Fedele Camarda, Cr Ben Lawver, Cr Frank Mofflin,
Cr Doug Thompson, Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
Moved: Cr Fedele Camarda Seconded: Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
Council:
2. Does not include the Lemon Scented Gum located at No. 6 Douglas Street,
Fremantle on the Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register.
LOST: 0/8
Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge, Cr Jenny Archibald, Cr Andrew Sullivan,
Cr Fedele Camarda, Cr Ben Lawver, Cr Frank Mofflin,
Cr Doug Thompson, Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
86/169
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
Moved: Cr Fedele Camarda Seconded: Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
Council:
3. Retains the Moreton Bay Fig located at 195 High Street, Fremantle on the
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register.
LOST: 2/6
For:
Cr Ben Lawver, Cr Doug Thompson
Against:
Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge, Cr Jenny Archibald, Cr Andrew Sullivan,
Cr Fedele Camarda, Cr Frank Mofflin, Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
Moved: Cr Fedele Camarda Seconded: Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
Council:
4. Advises the owner of 195 High Street, Fremantle that the City encourages
them to prepare a tree maintenance plan for the Moreton Bay Fig setting out
future maintenance requirements, including pruning, obstacle clearance and
dead wood removal, noting the availability of example templates.
LOST: 1/7
For:
Cr Ben Lawver
Against:
Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge, Cr Jenny Archibald, Cr Andrew Sullivan,
Cr Fedele Camarda, Cr Frank Mofflin, Cr Doug Thompson, Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
87/169
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
Moved: Cr Fedele Camarda Seconded: Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
Council:
5. Advises the owner of 195 High Street, Fremantle that while the City will
continue to encourage the retention of the Moreton Bay Fig, Council will revisit
its position on the tree’s inclusion on the Significant Trees and Vegetation
Areas Register upon receipt of a formal redevelopment application for the site,
provided that any proposal demonstrates other positive heritage outcomes
and/or community benefit.
LOST: 0/8
Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge, Cr Jenny Archibald, Cr Andrew Sullivan,
Cr Fedele Camarda, Cr Ben Lawver, Cr Frank Mofflin,
Cr Doug Thompson, Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
COUNCIL DECISION ITEM C2402-5
(Alternative motion)
Moved: Cr Andrew Sullivan Seconded: Cr Doug Thompson
2. Does not Includes the Lemon Scented Gum located at No. 6 Douglas
Street, Fremantle on the Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas
Register.
Carried: 8/0
Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge, Cr Jenny Archibald, Cr Andrew Sullivan,
Cr Fedele Camarda, Cr Ben Lawver, Cr Frank Mofflin,
Cr Doug Thompson, Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
Reasons for Alternative Motion:
The tree is a landmark to the neighbourhood and provides significant visual and
aesthetic value to everyone in our neighbourhood. This particular tree is one of the
largest trees in the area and if the owner of the property wishes to protect the tree.
88/169
COUNCIL DECISION ITEM C2402-5
(Alternative motion)
Moved: Cr Jenny Archibald Seconded: Cr Andrew Sullivan
3. a. Retains Removes the Moreton Bay Fig located at 195 High Street,
Fremantle on from the Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas
Register.
b. Request officers investigate and confirm whether there remains any
restrictions under the Planning Scheme and Heritage Listing of the
property for the fig tree at 195 High Street, once removed from the
Register, and communicate results to the landowner within three
months.
Carried: 7/1
For:
Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge, Cr Jenny Archibald, Cr Andrew Sullivan,
Cr Fedele Camarda, Cr Frank Mofflin,
Cr Doug Thompson, Cr Ingrid van Dorssen
Against:
Cr Ben Lawver
Reasons for Alternative Motion:
At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27th February 2019, the Local Planning Policy
2.23 "Register of Significant trees and vegetation areas" was adopted. The LPP 2.23
requires that inclusion of a tree on the Register is to be authorised by the owner(s)
of the land on which the tree is located. At the time that trees formerly included on
the Heritage List were transferred to the Register, the requirement for owner
authorisation had not come into effect. The current owner (of some 60 years) of 195
High St had not given permission for the tree to be included on the Register and in
the City's annual review of the Register has written to request that it be removed.
89/169
COUNCIL DECISION ITEM C2402-5
Council:
1. Notes the submissions received in relation to the proposed inclusion of
the Lemon Scented Gum at 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle on the
Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register and the proposed
removal of the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High Street, Fremantle from the
same Register, as outlined in the report and attachments.
2. Includes the Lemon Scented Gum located at No. 6 Douglas Street,
Fremantle on the Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register.
3. a. Removes the Moreton Bay Fig located at 195 High Street, Fremantle
from the Significant Trees and Vegetation Areas Register.
b. Request officers investigate and confirm whether there remains any
restrictions under the Planning Scheme and Heritage Listing of the
property for the fig tree at 195 High Street, once removed from the
Register, and communicate results to the landowner within three
months

27 February 2024: Mayor's post to Facebook

Adin Lang, Councillor for Fremantle City Ward has put forward a motion to revoke the decision we took on 14 February regarding the Moreton Bay Fig at 195 High St and I have advised him that I will support his motion.
This is not a decision I take lightly. And I accept that it will be a blow for the Cattalini family, who have borne the burden of caring for this tree for a long time.
As flagged in my earlier posts, I have had a fundamental discomfort with the way this tree (and others on the Heritage List) were moved to the Significant Tree Register without owner consent. While the decision to do this may have been legally valid, recent debate has highlighted some improvements we can make to that policy. I’ve proposed we amend Cr Lang’s motion to include a review of the policy, LPP 2.23, to potentially split this tree register into two parts - one for owner-consent significant trees on private land (with easier to meet criteria to encourage tree canopy protection); and one for trees of cultural heritage significance (requiring more robust assessment criteria following Burra Charter principles, which can be included without property owner consent, with the primary aim of preserving trees that have heritage value).
It’s clearly a community priority that we get more trees protected by being on the register, so aligned with the Urban Canopy motion supported in December last year, I will also propose that we accelerate the introduction of incentives to support the maintenance of trees on the Significant Tree Register, for consideration in our budget deliberations for 2024/25.

References and Links

Philip Webster - page on this site.

Heritage Council entry (as above).

Freotopia

This page incorporates material from Garry Gillard's Freotopia website, that he started in 2014 and the contents of which he donated to Wikimedia Australia in 2024. The content was originally created on 24 February, 2024 and hosted at freotopia.org/buildings/webstertree.html (it was last updated on 28 February, 2024), and has been edited since it was imported here (see page history). The donated data is also preserved in the Internet Archive's collection.