The May Council Meeting approved the removal of a protected Norfolk Island pine tree to make way for a new house on a subdivided block on Werri St.

Council staff noted that removing the tree was likely inevitable for any future dwelling on the site, as it hindered compliant housing design and posed safety risks as it continued to grow.

Concerned by the precedent it would set, Councillor Kath Rice opposed the motion, saying, “It becomes clear that protecting the tree is less important than constructing a building to meet the needs of the property owner. Whatever happened to buyer beware?

"Through preserving significant trees, the section 88B instrument on this lot, functions to maintain the historic views from Mount Pleasant, and from Werri Beach, of the Norfolk Island Pines at the lagoon entrance.

"This DA seeks to diminish that view through allowing tree removal that will set a precedent for further erosion of historic vegetation in the area and further visual loss of Kiama’s cultural heritage. 

A render of the approved house

"It is stated that overall, the development is in the public interest. Is the public interest really being served by dismissing environmental controls that have grown from public sentiment over time? What else can the community rely upon to ensure that Council’s work does in fact align with what is important to community.  

"It should not be the housing needs of individuals that turn these controls around, but the community will as expressed through Council’s Community Strategic Plan and Planning Controls. That turn-around has not occurred yet and existing controls should be upheld."

In support of the motion, Councillor Imogen Draisma noted the concerted effort of Council staff and the property owners to make changes to address “a very complex parcel of land” and she can’t “with a good conscience, given the housing crisis… deny the opportunity for this family to develop this property. They’ve done everything they possibly can to address the concerns that we heard from the community, (and) from the staff.”

The motion to approve the DA was carried with six councillors for, and Councillors Rice, Renkema-Lang and Keast voting against it.