Land developers are clearing every piece of greenery from new estates, leaving up to 98 per cent of each new suburb comprising hot, barren and tree-less streets.
The WA Tree Canopy Advocates claims the land clearing practice has turned new suburbs into heat islands, forcing residents to use more air-conditioning.
Chairwoman Sarah Allchurch has called for a change to the planning framework which currently allows the complete clearing of mature trees during greenfield subdivisions.
She said developers planted seedlings after clearing the site made little difference, because trees do not provide enough of a canopy or properly mitigate heat until they are 30 to 60 years old.
“A sapling is a promise of shade for your grandkids, but a mature tree shades your family today,” she said.
“In a city like Perth, trees aren’t decoration, they’re essential infrastructure.”
Ms Allchurch said that under the current system, total clearing in new suburbs was the norm.
“We are creating urban heat islands instead of liveable suburbs,” she said.
“The families who move into these neighbourhoods will pay the price for decades, with hotter temperatures, higher cooling costs and greater risks to their health.”
Ms Allchurch said earlier subdivision practices in WA commonly worked with existing landforms and vegetation, allowing mature trees to be retained through site-responsive subdivision design.
But this approach has largely been replaced by subdivision methods that rely on large-scale clearing and bulk earthworks to produce flat, construction-ready lots.
While key planning instruments such as Liveable Neighbourhoods and the WA Planning Commission Model Subdivision Conditions contain references to trees, landscaping and tree retention, they did not mandate the protection of existing vegetation.
She said the leafy western suburbs and other upmarket established suburbs reflected a global phenomenon whereby high socio-economic areas had more trees.
But she said every demographic deserved the benefits of mature trees, especially in a hot place like Perth.
She said Perth’s lowest canopy levels were found in the mortgage belt in the newer northern and southern growth areas.
According to the WATCA, Alkimos, Eglinton and Butler have just 1 to 1.8 per cent tree canopy cover, which means more than 98 per cent of the suburb has no trees.
In Treeby in the south, there is just 2 per cent canopy.
A State Government spokesperson said the Cook Labor Government had taken proactive steps to protect urban tree canopy in new developments
“In 2024, we announced the revised residential codes, which included incentives to retain existing trees as well as minimum planting and soft landscaping standards for new developments,” the spokesperson said..
“These reforms built on the apartment codes released in 2019 that include minimum requirements for deep soil zones, tree planting and soft landscaping in higher density developments.”
The spokesperson said the government had developed Perth and Peel’s first ever Urban Greening Strategy and was providing grants to boost canopy to schools and community groups through the $10 million Let’s Grow program.
The Government was also providing incentives for people to plant native trees on their properties, via the Treebates.
But Ms Allchurch said the State Government’s target was toothless, with no reward or punishment for missing the 30 per cent canopy goal.
“The Government has set a 30 per cent canopy target, but it hasn’t changed the planning rules to get us there, so it’s like filling the bath with the plug out,” she said.
“Developers still aren’t required to retain a single tree when clearing land for new suburbs and our State planning codes don’t actually protect any trees.”
She said that if the State government was serious about reaching the target, it would require tree retention as part of the planning system.
Representing land developers, the Urban Developer institute of WA said it was a complex issue which affected the cost of land.
Chief executive Tanya Steinbeck said trees were important be cause they improved neighbourhood amenity, acknowledging that they reduced urban heat impacts, supported biodiversity and contributed to more liveable communities.
“There is also an important trade-off between tree canopy requirements and housing affordability,” she said.
“As governments seek to increase housing supply and provide more affordable housing options, lot sizes have generally become smaller and densities have increased in appropriate locations.
“This can reduce the space available for large canopy trees on individual lots and increase the complexity and cost of compliance.”
Ms Steinbeck said developers also had to balance the competing requirements relating to bushfire regulations, road infrastructure, drainage, power, water and sewer services, public open space provision and housing affordability objectives.
“These are regulatory and practical constraints, and public safety considerations, that need to be considered alongside canopy targets,” she said.
“The challenge is not choosing between trees and housing, but finding the right balance between both outcomes.”