The Town of Claremont has approved the removal of a 100-year-old heritage-listed tree protected by the National Trust at the same meeting where it committed to a tree retention policy.
The lemon-scented gum, thought to be planted in 1925, is in the front yard of a Riley Road private property and its health has been declining since at least 2019.
It was added to the National Trust of Australia WA’s classified list in 1991 and the Town of Claremont’s heritage list in 1995.
The council voted at its August meeting to take the gum off its heritage list after removal of the trust’s restrictive covenant over the tree, which is now bare of leaves.
A report by town staff said the property owners sought advice about the tree’s removal because of its declining health in March 2025, and after the subsequent sale of the $8.1m home the new owners formally applied for withdrawal of the covenant and from the heritage list.
Camera IconThe lemon-scented gum tree pictured in 2020. Credit: Supplied
The owners’ request said arborist assessments commissioned by the trust found the tree initially had a 15 per cent chance of recovery in April 2025 but this dropped to 5 per cent by December, and it was unlikely to warrant retention.
In February, they said the assessor’s testing found chloride toxicity was a possible contributor to the tree’s ill health and proposed management and monitoring, which the owners said did not result in “meaningful or sustained recovery”.
They said another arborist report in July commissioned by the trust supported the tree’s removal.
Town staff agreed the gum was in “irreversible decline”, no longer satisfied reasons for its heritage listing, and should be cut down before it risked public safety and property.
Camera IconThe tree pictured in July 2026. Credit: Supplied
Cr Kate Main suggested the previous installation of the home’s pool could have caused the “sad” outcome.
“Probably digging the pool and disturbing these roots a while ago and perhaps draining excess water has added chlorine to the soil in the past, and it probably hasn’t helped the tree, unbeknownst probably to the owners at the time,” she said.
Cr Jill Goetze believed removal was the “right thing to do” because it now posed a safety risk.
“This is very sad, especially as we’ve just passed our tree retention policy,” she said.
“It’s such a shame that such a beautiful heritage tree has been unable to survive in this urban environment.”
At the same meeting, the council adopted a tree retention on private land policy in response to a “marked decline in tree canopy” in recent years.
It requires that regulated trees — those 8m and higher with a 6m average canopy diameter and/or 1.5m trunk circumference — should be retained in perpetuity and protected, unless exempt or approval is given for its removal.
The policy also requires development, subdivision and planning applications to include detailed information about any affected regulated trees.
More than 150 submissions were received during public consultation last year, with most in favour of the policy, but concerns were raised about it potentially restricting redevelopment and increasing costs borne by landowners.
A town report said “trees and vegetation are vital community assets in urban environments, supporting liveability, contributing to local amenity, enhancing neighbourhood character, and providing environmental benefits such as shade, biodiversity habitat, and improved air quality”.