Canberra Matters columnist PAUL COSTIGAN worries about trees, floods and more trees

IT was announced on Wednesday (October 23) that the government is reviewing the ACT’s Tree Protection Act. Good news! Maybe. 

The devil is in the detail and we are talking about a government that we have learnt not to trust. 

The announcement was by the ACT Minister for Community Services – not by the ACT Greens, who are currently convincing everyone that they are green because of new climate policies. 

We do not know how the two consultations are connected. And, as been highlighted often, the current implementation of the policies on trees is ad hoc and the number of trees continues to diminish – despite the constant flow of spin to the contrary.

But we have to give this initiative a go – and, yes, everyone should respond. 

Be aware of some of the disingenuous phrases already mentioned that will most likely form the basis of bad policy outcomes. Yes, in some circumstances, trees should be removed on the condition of what they are and how they are replaced. 

After each episode around the removal of any trees, the site concerned should end up with more trees, more shrubs and enhanced biodiversity – not less. The concept of some form of payment to offset the loss should be rejected as tree protection should not be about wealthy developers avoiding their responsibilities with cash outlays. 

It should be about growing our urban forests and the associated biodiversity. The Bush Capital needs to be even more wonderful.

There is a very good recommendation from a previous report for the establishment of a government tree curator. 

That 2011 report was titled “Investigation into the Government’s tree management practices and the renewal of Canberra’s urban forest”. 

As I said earlier this year, the tree curator needs to have legislative authority to immediately cease the destruction of our urban forests and to require the relevant agencies to work in an integrated manner to improve the future of the city and its trees.

These decisions are not always easy. It requires flexibility and intelligence and to be overseen by a special talented person who has the ability to stay focused on the overall aim and the big picture – and not be influenced by all the usual forces that are still influencing and undermining planning and development decisions.

Have your say – by December 8. At yoursay.act.gov.au/trees-act

How did the water recede from the ACT Flood Map?

HERE’S an issue now being looked at in the inner north – and no-one has yet to work out what happened. 

In proposing to build a Common Ground apartment complex on Section 72 Dickson, the Minister for Social Housing, Yvette Berry, has chosen to ignore community aspirations for cultural community facilities and to plonk it down on the south-east corner of Section 72 Dickson (Dickson Parklands).

Residents have asked at several meetings what about floods that can happen when the Dickson drain overflows and nearby properties are inundated – as happened in February, 2018. 

The answers have been vaguely bureaucratic (as we have come to expect) and have indicated that there were no problems. To back this up the 2018 Flood Map for the area shows that the flood water may not enter that site (image above).

However, upon further research one resident unearthed the ACT Environment and Planning Directorate’s 2014 published flood map (below) that shows that this corner of Section 72 could be flooded. If so, this will definitely impact the site and play havoc with the underground parking.

The question has been asked when did this change and why and by whom. How is it that that in 2014 it was deemed to be in danger of flooding and then after the site was chosen for a social-housing complex, that the map in 2018 no longer indicates the possibility of flooding? 

Nobody knows! It is indeed mysterious. We await the response.

When do the Greens plan to react to more trees being removed?

As mentioned above and previously in my column, the ACT government is hoping to plonk Common Ground onto Section 72 in Dickson and is asking for feedback on the concept design for the building and site design. 

However, the more important issue is the draft variation being proposed. To quote from the government planning site: 

Draft Variation 367 proposes to rezone block 25 section 72 Dickson from commercial CZ6 leisure and accommodation zone to CFZ community facility zone to facilitate development of the Common Ground housing model. Common Ground is a housing model that accommodates people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, as well as low-income tenants. Supportive housing is prohibited in the commercial CZ6 zone and community housing is currently not defined in the Territory Plan.

We all understand that!

What we do understand is that this tricky and unique variation will allow for a six-storey apartment building on a site and then be used to justify more elsewhere on section 72. All this ignores that the community very clearly keeps saying that anything on this site should not be above three to four storeys – not be above the tree heights.

Just as worrying is that there is not enough parking allowed for the 40 housing units planned. Their spin is meaningless on this. No matter what the purposes of the complex, the tenants will end up with cars, with guests and with visitors.

And then there are the trees that are to go. 

This site will have new roads around it and to do so it is estimated that 50 mature trees may have to go along with damage being done to the root systems of others. 

Add to that the mystery around the flood maps as mentioned above, and you would think that any progressive politicians worth their money would have by now have spoken up. Nope – not a sound. The ACT Greens are out of sight, hiding behind the fence again.

When do our local politicians show some honest support for their constituents and their commonsense aspiration to keep the mature trees we have and to speak out against questionable developments? 

This is not good planning. Please have your say on this draft variation: click here for the page –scroll down to DV367; comments by COB Friday (November 1).