Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1270 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

age, height and species. We do not believe that a blanket tree preservation order is appropriate at this stage because that could protect a whole range of other trees which the community may not feel would be appropriate. The important thing to stress here is that public consultation is required on a very thorough basis to ensure that the criteria used to identify which trees go on the register is properly agreed upon and is representative of the community's view.

Mr Speaker, the other issue I want to raise is the impact of urban consolidation and redevelopment in Canberra on our tree asset. We received a considerable body of evidence which indicated that the current policy of urban consolidation, particularly in regard to dual occupancy redevelopment, was resulting in a major change taking place in many of our established suburbs. Suburbs such as Yarralumla, Deakin, Red Hill, Turner, O'Connor, Lyneham, Braddon and even Reid were highlighted as examples of where, through dual occupancy redevelopment, whole blocks were cleared of trees and significant hardstanding was put in place. Two or more dwellings were placed on the blocks and there was simply no room to have a tree canopy.

This has been referred to by a number of planning commentators as the greying of our suburbs. Urban consolidation is leading to the greying of our suburbs, the loss of tree canopy. This situation is one of considerable concern to the committee. We do not believe that this process should continue unabated and we have recommended that the government should immediately take steps to do a review of the impact of the dual occupancy policy on suburban streetscapes, particularly in established older suburbs. Mr Speaker, these suburbs are of considerable amenity and attractiveness. This is often reflected in the price that people pay to live in them. Their attractiveness and their amenity is greatly diminished if, through a policy of urban consolidation, we lose those very elements that make them attractive and pleasant places in which to live.

Mr Speaker, the final point I want to make about this report is the current inadequacy of the protection legislation we have in place at the moment. The committee's report and our inquiry highlight the fact that at the moment we have an absurd situation where trees are protected during a development process or a redevelopment process. They are properly identified, fenced, retained. But, Mr Speaker, as soon as the redevelopment or development is over, there is nothing to stop the lessee who has moved into the development stepping out of the back door on the following Saturday morning, revving up their chainsaw and chopping the tree down. It seems a fairly pointless exercise, Mr Speaker, to protect a tree during a redevelopment process and simply allow it to be cut down as soon as the building is finished. That is a situation that occurs in Canberra at the moment because of the inconsistent and patchy legislative framework.

It is interesting to know that in relation to new developments, greenfield sites in areas such as Gungahlin and Tuggeranong, we have situations where again trees are identified to be retained as part of the suburban subdivision design. They are retained throughout that process and properly protected; but as soon as the blocks are sold, the houses built and the residents move in, again there is nothing to stop a person stepping out of the back door and cutting the tree down. That is a fairly pointless exercise in protection, I would suggest, Mr Speaker, if it is not consistent.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .