Perth councils are coming under pressure to remove street trees because they are causing allergic reactions.

Complaints to councils about allergies caused by trees are anecdotally on the rise but many councils do not recognise allergies alone as a reason to remove healthy trees.

The Town of Mosman Park council will tonight consider tweaking its policy to allow extreme cases of allergies to justify removing a street tree.

Sufferers would need to give medical proof of their condition and cover the cost of removal.

Under the town’s existing policy, which is similar to those of many metropolitan councils, street trees can generally only be removed if they present a significant safety hazard or are diseased or dead.

Mosman Park receives more than 40 requests a year from residents wanting trees removed for a variety of reasons.

According to a report to the council, claims of allergic reactions have increased but there is a gap in the policy that does not give the town scope to remove trees outside certain parameters.

The report said council should decide whether an allergic reaction was an acceptable reason to remove a street tree and to what extent.

Allergies can be triggered by almost any flowering tree but problematic species include London plane trees, wattles, Norfolk Island hibiscus andbottlebrushes.

A mild allergic response can produce hay fever-like symptoms, while extreme reactions can cause breathing difficulties.

Mosman Park mayor Brett Pollock said the proposed change in policy was about “common sense”.

It included avoiding planting trees that were particularly problematic.

“It (an allergic reaction) is popping up more and more as people become more susceptible to allergies,” he said. “It’s just a bit of common sense.”

Mr Pollock said his priority was increasing the tree canopy.

If the proposal to tonight’s council meeting is approved, the town’s default position on street trees will remain that they should only be removed where no other options are feasible.

Perth Allergy’s Richard Nolan has written letters to councils on behalf of allergy sufferers when it was clear that a tree was responsible for their symptoms.

He said there was always a concern people might want a tree to be removed for other reasons, such as improving their view but that had not been his experience.

Dr Nolan said the response from the councils had been good. However, he said removing trees was not always a solution, particularly if the same species was planted all along the street.

An Allergy & Anaphylaxis spokeswoman said it was unrealistic to ask councils to remove trees, but they should be aware of trees and plants that were particular contributors to pollen allergy and to avoid planting them in residential areas.