Opinion: Everyone has a different view

There's nothing quite like a view. 

Be it the ocean with waves rolling onto the beach, a stunning alpine setting, some livestock on an undulating pasture, the bright lights of a major city, the cooling effect of the Swan River, or just a simple bit of park with a stretch of green grass; there is something therapeutic about it. 

That’s why we crave these things when we book holidays. 

And that’s why people pay a premium for a view when they make what is typically the biggest purchase of their lives: their home. 

When we bought a house across from a park 25 years ago, we knew from day one that the extra cost had been worth it; both for our own peace of mind and the scarcity value. 

These days, with Perth house prices escalating, it takes greater resources than ever to buy any property, let alone the relative few with a spectacular view or even river glimpses. 

So it is natural people want to protect that. And doing so is not new. We’ve seen numerous court battles over homebuilders who have encroached on or built-out the neighbour’s views. 

Plenty of trees and large bushes planted by councils have died in mysterious circumstances when located between a picture window and vista more scenic than their own contribution. 

In some places, councils have placed ugly signage where trees have been killed as a way of discouraging property owners from taking matters into their own hands. 

We’ve had plenty of trees planted in our neighbourhood that have reduced our views, but none has got me so riled that I’ve taken the glyphosate to them. 

That doesn’t mean I was always happy about it, though. Further down the road, Western Power deposited a green transformer – about three metres long and 1.5 metres high – in front of our neighbour’s place. 

It was a terrible thing to do by a bureaucracy that had little regard for its impact on one family’s personal amenity and wealth. 

If it was my view interrupted they would not have heard the end of it.

To me, it is really no surprise that the City of South Perth faced complaints about some trees it had planted on the Swan River foreshore. 

Only a handful of residents complained, but they have skin in the game.

The same should be said for construction. 

While it is hard to protect every view, or for that matter everyone’s right to have the winter sun in their backyard, there is nothing wrong with making this a consideration. 

Thankfully, overshadowing limits are already policy in many areas. 

Perhaps view preservation ought to be, too, so that homeowners know where they stand and council workers, paid for by ratepayers, must consider their needs. 

If someone building a multi-level home or a high rise is about to profit from doing so, why should that be at the cost of someone else’s home value? 

There is another story here worth telling. Councils are trying to plant more trees because their residents are building ever-bigger houses on ever-decreasing sized blocks. 

The loss of canopy is predominantly due to private homeowners chopping down trees. 

That is their right and I object to the vigilantes who criticise them because, after all, those vigilantes don’t own the asset. 

It isn’t fair that a landowner who has the last tree in the street must protect it because all their neighbours have cut theirs down. 

Perhaps councils ought to pay people to keep their trees, rather fighting a losing battle to stop people doing what they want with their own land.

Don’t get me wrong here. I truly regret the loss of tree canopy. I think it makes our suburbs hotter, less homely and terrible for native wildlife. 

But penalising those who have a tree is not the answer. Nor is it to plant trees on every bit of open space we have. 

The easy way is more street trees to shade our roads (which absorb a lot of heat). 

With judicious planting, this action could easily replace the losses of backyard canopy. And no-one will complain about their suburban street being full of trees.