Zorzi v Town of Cambridge: A Wake-Up Call for WA Planners

Patrick Beilby and the Commercial team discuss lessons from a recent case about tree removal.

Landscaping not an “afterthought”
Lessons from Zorzi v Town of Cambridge [2025] WASAT 77 (Zorzi).

Beyond Tree Removal: A Broader Legal Framework 

The Tribunal’s findings extend well beyond the threshold issue of whether tree removal constitutes development. Senior Member Willey made clear that:

1. Development approvals must be interpreted strictly according to their terms, not by reference to the broader planning framework or policies that gave rise to them. This means that once an approval is granted, its scope is determined by the approved plans and conditions—not by later-adopted policies such as Local Planning Policy (LPP) 3.25: Tree Retention.
2. Clause 67(2)(p) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 imposes a protective—not prospective—obligation on decision-makers. It requires them to assess whether any trees or vegetation on the land ought to be preserved at the time of considering the development application. In Zorzi, this evaluative judgment was not or not sufficiently made, and later tree retention policies could not be relied upon to restrict works already authorised.
3. Landscaping is a fundamental planning consideration, not a design afterthought. Drawing on his earlier decision in Kemstone Investments Pty Ltd v City of Joondalup, Senior Member Willey reiterated that planning and design experts must integrate landscaping into development proposals from the outset. The Tribunal rejected the notion that landscaping could be dealt with superficially or retrospectively.

Summary of Findings 

Senior Member Willey summarised his findings with precision:

1. The Tuart Tree was a substantial, endemic feature visible from the public realm, and its removal had adverse town planning consequences. The approved plans clearly contemplated the removal of the Tuart Tree and its replacement with a “new” tree.
2. Condition 1 of the approval required strict compliance with the approved plans, which included the tree’s removal. The Town could have specified that the Tuart Tree was to be preserved but did not do so.
3. Clause 73(a) of the deemed provisions confirms that the scope of approval is determined by the development for which approval was sought. LPP 3.25 could not retrospectively alter the meaning of the approval.
4. The Town’s post-approval conduct, including its advice to the applicant about LPP 3.25, suggested it was aware of the tree’s significance. The absence of a condition preserving the tree indicated that the Town did not consider it worthy of protection during the approval process.
5. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to implement the approved plans without restriction, including the removal of the Tuart Tree.

Implications 

This decision sets a precedent for how development approvals are to be interpreted and how planning discretion must be exercised. It underscores the need for:

• Clear and enforceable local planning policies;
• Early and thorough assessment of landscaping and vegetation;
• Greater accountability in the approval process.

For local governments, the importance of adopting a tree policy and ensuring it is regularly reviewed, is a clear implication. For planners and applicants, the case reinforces that landscaping, and vegetation must be treated as integral to planning—not as an afterthought.

*This information serves as a general guide and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on our research and experience at the time of publication. Please consult our knowledgeable legal team for any specific inquiries or advice relevant to your circumstances, as the content may not have been updated subsequently.

Consult Our Legal Team