Council Q&A

To keep the momentum going with the City of Stirling, we often ask questions to the council. Please find a summary of the latest Q&A below. If you are interested in the full text, please download the full Council meeting minutes on https://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/city-and-council/about-council/council-and-committee-meetings/minutes-and-agendas

Council Meeting 1 April 2025 – M Keenan

Question: Will Councillors undertake WALGA’s new eLearning course on environment and sustainability, given community concern over issues like tree canopy loss and drying lakes?
Response: The course is not mandatory and hasn’t been taken by any Councillors so far, though the City would fund participation. Councillors do attend other relevant workshops on sustainability and environmental matters.

Question: Will the City coordinate verge tree planting with Western Power’s underground power works to prevent tree damage?
Response: Yes, the City prioritises tree planting in areas with low or declining urban canopy and aligns planting accordingly.

Question: How are newly planted verge trees monitored and watered, especially in high-density areas where residents may not help?
Response: New street trees are watered during warmer months for up to two years (potentially three, depending on conditions). Water truck drivers monitor tree health and report issues like damage or maintenance needs.

Concern: The City reports progress on its Urban Forest Strategy, yet data shows it’s falling short of the relatively modest 18% canopy target by 2040, with a loss of 2.8 million m² of significant canopy and a 30,600-tree shortfall.
Response: The City is meeting targets for planting on City-managed land. Most canopy loss is on private land, over which the City has limited control.
Suburb Canopy Loss Risk: Some suburbs may lose up to 50% canopy on private properties, but the City expects overall canopy to increase.
Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (PSHB): Omitted from the 2023/24 Annual Report due to no significant impact at the time, but it will be addressed in the 2024/25 report as impacts emerge.

Concern: The City is not meeting key waste diversion targets:
- Municipal waste diversion target (67%) is at 43%.
- Commercial/industrial waste diversion target (70%) is at 49%.
- Material recovery target (70%) is at 43%.
- No data reported for per capita waste reduction.
Response: The City is actively exploring alternative waste treatment with partners, particularly the Mindarie Regional Council. Confidential commercial work is ongoing. Current systems (e.g., Balcatta Recycling Centre) are being optimised with a focus on public education.
FOGO (Food Organics Garden Organics) Implementation:
- Why not implemented? Council decided not to introduce FOGO at this time due to high costs, operational risks, and scale. The City is monitoring developments and may reconsider in future.
- Mayor’s Comment: Implementing FOGO for a population the size of the Northern Territory poses financial and logistical challenges, including changes to red bin schedules and supplying green bins to ~30,000 shared dwellings.

Concern: Given the worsening climate indicators (less rainfall, higher temperatures, groundwater depletion, coastal erosion), why hasn’t the City declared a climate emergency or joined relevant alliances?
Response: The City deliberately avoids declarations it sees as symbolic without action plans. Instead, it focuses on implementing tangible initiatives like its Sustainability and Energy Action Plan and partnerships (e.g., with WALGA and the City Power Partnership). It has not joined Climate Emergency Australia or signed the WALGA Climate Change Declaration, preferring to act rather than signal.

Question: Does the City have data on how much canopy is needed to mitigate climate change effects?
Response: While the City is aware of research on the cooling benefits of canopy, it hasn’t collected specific data on required canopy levels to counter climate change. This is a broader issue, likely to be addressed in the upcoming Perth and Peel Urban Greening Strategy by the State Government.

Question: Does the City still monitor canopy on both City-managed and private land?
Response: Yes, the City collects annual canopy data through airborne remote sensing, covering all land types: City, State, and private.

Question: How does the City motivate residents to retain trees, especially given maintenance costs (e.g., pruning near powerlines)?
Response: Incentives include:
- Fast-tracked assessment for developments that retain significant trees.
- Flexible planning provisions to encourage tree retention.
- A Significant Tree Register.
- Access to a City-subsidised Arborist.
- Education and awareness campaigns.
- A current trial project checking tree planting/retention compliance in approved developments.
Note: Tree maintenance near powerlines remains the property owner’s responsibility; species choice and smart pruning are recommended.

Issue: The City is not on track to meet its tree canopy target, mainly due to private land tree removals.
Response:
- Urban vegetation remains the City’s key strategy to combat the urban heat island effect.
- In 2023/24, the City planted ~7,600 trees on streets and in parks.
- It also distributed ~4,755 trees and ~21,869 waterwise plants to residents and schools to boost private land greening.
- Tree planting has been an annual commitment since 2008.

What’s Worked & What Hasn’t:
- Past engagement with the development industry failed to identify effective ways to retain trees during redevelopment.
- Current initiatives, like the Significant Tree Register (launched October 2024), offer a voluntary way for residents to protect trees on private land.
- A public awareness campaign around the register will launch soon.
Future Plans:
- In the absence of a coordinated state-wide policy, the City is exploring innovative local incentives to encourage tree retention on private property.