community forum report - envcomm.act.gov.au€¦ · community forum report - investigation into act...

Investigation into

ACT Tree Management Practices and the

Renewal of Canberra’s Urban Forest

Community Forum Report

Prepared for

The Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment

February 2010

Community Forum Report - Investigation into ACT Tree Management

of 37

February 2010


of 37

February 2010

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 5

2 Community Forums ........................................................................... 6

3 Outcomes .......................................................................................... 9

4 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 10

APPENDIX A……..Tems of Reference for the Investigation ......................................... 12

APPENDIX B……..Tree Investigation Reference Panel .................................................. 13

APPENDIX C……..Public Advertisement ....................................................................... 15

APPENDIX D……..Community Forum Proceedings ....................................................... 16

APPENDIX E………Community Forum Presentations .................................................... 18

APPENDIX F………Issues and Outcomes Report ............................................................ 21


of 37

February 2010

Excerpt from presentation, Canberra and Trees, Dr Dianne Firth, 15 February 2010

The 1912 Federal Capital

Commonwealth vision

Canberra’s urban forest legacy


of 37

February 2010

1 . Introduction

On 3 December 2009 the ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine

Cooper, was directed by the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water, Simon Corbell

to conduct an investigation into ACT tree management practices and the renewal of Canberra’s

urban forest. The terms of reference are provided at Appendix A. A Tree Investigation Reference

Panel was established for the purposes of the Investigation. (See Appendix B).

Public notices inviting comment on the Investigation into the Government’s tree management

practices and the renewal of Canberra’s urban forest were placed on the website of the Office of

the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment (OCSE) from mid December 2009.

Notices were also placed in the Canberra Times and local Community Council newsletters

throughout January and early February.

On 18 December 2009 community members were invited to register their interest or make a

submission to the Investigation. All submissions to the Investigation are to be made public unless

requested otherwise. Community members were also invited to share their views on tree

management in the ACT by attending one of two community forums during February 2010. This

report describes the outcomes of the community forums only.

Timeframes

• 22 January 2010: Final date for community members to register their name and email

address to be informed about consultation during the investigation;

• 2 February 2010: A general invitation was issued for community members to share their

views on tree management in the ACT by attending a community forum on 11 or 15

February 2010. (Appendix C provides an example invitation)

• 12 March 2010: Final date to lodge a submission via either mail or email with respect to

the terms of reference for the Investigation (Note: Extended from original date of 26

February 2010)

• 30 June 2010: Final date for the Commissioner‘s report on the Tree Investigation to the

Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water.


of 37

February 2010

2. Community Forums

The two community forums were held on:

• 11 February 2010 at Ainslie Football Club, 52 Wakefield Avenue, Ainslie.

o 34 members of the public attended

• 15 February 2010 in the Bradman Room, Manuka Oval, Canberra Avenue, Manuka.

o 71 members of the public attended.

The Forum Process

The proceedings for each Forum are presented at Appendix D. The Terms of Reference of the

Investigation were printed on the reverse of a Draft Agenda for the information of attendees.


of 37

February 2010

The process involved both provision of information, and involvement through identification of

issues, and exchange of concerns and ideas.

• Information - a series of short presentations by government and community

representatives, was followed by a Question and Answer session, to provide a foundation

of knowledge for the discussions and for community submissions.

• Involvement - four methods were used to identify issues for the Investigation.

• Issue identification using yellow ‘post-it’ notes. Participants each identified three

key issues. These were grouped, reviewed and further discussed during the night,

both in the full group, and in topic specific workgroups.

• A discussion forum expanded on the issues to provide greater depth to the

concerns and suggestions.

• ‘Thought cards’ were used to collect further ideas, clarifications and suggestions.

• Small topic specific workgroups discussions and one-on-one discussions with

staff.


of 37

February 2010

Background to Tree Management in Canberra

The information component of the Forum, provided a background and brief history of trees in the

Canberra urban environment. Formal presentations were made by members of the Investigation

Reference Panel. On 11 February Mr. Geoff Butler, a horticultural and environmental consultant,

presented “Renewal of the ACT Urban Forest – the Big Issues.” On 15 February “Trees and

Canberra” was presented by Dr Diane Firth, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture

University of Canberra, and Deputy Chair of the ACT Heritage Council.

Brief presentations followed, providing information on Public Area Tree Management by Fleur

Flanery, Manager of the Urban Forest Renewal Program; Tree Protection in the ACT by Richard

Allen of the ACT Tree Protection Unit in TAMS, and Tree management in National Lands by

National Capital Authority CEO Gary Rake. Appendix D provides a summary of key points raised

by the speakers. The Forum was facilitated by BEACONHILL, supported by staff of OCSE.


of 37

February 2010

3 . Outcomes

During the course of the two Community Forums many important issues were identified for

consideration. These are outlined in further detail at Appendix F. The issues discussed and

considered were those that were raised by the people who attended.

Many of the issues and concerns were strongly felt including the following:

• A need and desire for much better community information and engagement with

affected communities. A lack of confidence in the process of tree management, and

maintenance, as well as tree assessments, removal and replanting was closely linked to

the approach and quality of communications.;

• Much stronger investment in systematic maintenance of the trees in the public domain;

• Stronger Government control, oversight of maintenance and removal practices ; and

• Transparency of the Investigation process.

Whilst there was an acknowledgement of the change issues leading to stressed trees, i.e. natural

aging, urban change and city growth, changing climate, and water restriction policies; there was

a clear voice of concern for the city’s landscape character and the need to invest significantly in

improved approaches to communication, and better management and maintenance systems.

There was also a strong desire expressed to better understand the government’s priorities in

relation to allocation of resources for tree removal and replacement. At the same time

community representatives did appreciate the opportunity to participate in the investigation

process.

Timeframes

In response to concerns about the timeframes for submissions to the Inquiry, the Commissioner

announced on 15 February that the deadline for submissions had been extended to 12 March

2010, and that anyone who is still having trouble managing that deadline can contact her office

to discuss their submission requirements.

‘That was a most interesting meeting’

Lorna, 93, Manuka


of 37

February 2010

4. Conclusion

Community forums held with the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment during

February have identified many issues of concern, along with suggestions for improved tree

management in the ACT.

Residents attending showed their concern for the issues under investigation. Whilst there were a

range of perspectives and experiences presented, there was a common concern for what was

seen as an erosion of the landscape character, inadequate communication of changes associated

with the Urban Forest Renewal process, and a lack of commitment or capacity to protect and

enhance the urban forest. At the same time there was an appreciation of the current challenges

for tree management and the opportunity to participate in the Investigation process.

Whilst forums of this nature represent only a relatively small section of the community they do

provide a very important insight into the nature and depth of community views. Attendees at

both events were highly interested and engaged.

These issues along with written submissions to the Commissioner for Sustainability and the

Environment, research, and other forms of discovery and consultation are to inform the current

Tree Management Investigation.


of 37

February 2010

Trees selected for summer shade and winter sun.

Excerpt from presentation, Canberra and Trees, Dr Dianne Firth 15 February 2010


of 37

February 2010

APPENDIX A TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE INVESTIGATION

The Commissioner will investigate and report on the following matters:

1. the scope and efficiency of any enhancement that may be required to the Government’s

existing tree management programs;

2. the benefits and drawbacks of considering funding for urban tree programs separately to

climate change initiatives;

3. improved notification and consultation processes to support greater community

involvement in urban tree planning and management, including risk mitigation, tree

removal and planting;

4. the priority given in tree management decisions to environmental values, solar access

and the retention of communities of trees in parks;

5. the sustainable reuse of timber from felled trees;

6. when replanting should occur following the removal of trees, the scope for pre-planting,

and principles for the number and species of trees that should be replanted;

7. the need for enhanced management to maintain the survival and good health of trees;

8. appropriate safeguards to ensure contractors follow best practice and adhere to

Government tree policies;

9. principles for the decision-making process where it is proposed that a tree is removed or

is retained;

10. improvements to the Tree Protection Act or other relevant Acts in light of the above

matters; and

11. resource implications associated with an enhanced program.


of 37

February 2010

APPENDIX B TREE INVESTIGATION REFERENCE PANEL

The Tree Investigation Reference Panel is providing advice to the Commissioner on the Tree

Investigation from expert and community perspectives.

Mr Alan Kerlin Alan is the president of the Gungahlin Community Council and is a resident of

Harrison. He is an advocate of sustainable housing design, and has a history in natural resource

management as a former Landcare manager and a former local government Councillor. He has

previously served as a community representative on the ACT Planning Minister's Territory Plan

Review Reference Panel.

Dr Dianne Firth Dianne is Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture, Head of Landscape

Architecture, Faculty of Arts and Design, University of Canberra. She is also a Fellow of the

Australian Institute of Landscape Architects and Deputy Chair of the ACT Heritage Council. Her

research interests cover the designed landscape of Canberra, its values and management.

Professor Don Aitkin AO Don is presently the Chairman of the National Capital Authority and of

the Cultural Facilities Corporation. In a former life he was Vice-Chancellor and President of the

University of Canberra (1991-2002), and founding Chairman of the Australian Research Council

(1987-1990).

Dr Dorothy Jauncey Dorothy has been a teacher and principal in the ACT public schools system

from 1978 until 1992. After completing a PhD, she has undertaken research at ANU, where she is

now a Visiting Fellow. She has lived in Yarralumla for 35 years, her family have all grown up there,

and she is interested and involved in planning issues as they impact at the local community level.

Ms Gabrielle Hurley Gabrielle has studied environmental law at the Australian National

University graduating with a masters of law in 2009 and has significant experience conducting

administrative investigations. She is Director of Investigations at the Australian Capital Territory

Ombudsman and is representing this Office.

Mr Geoff Butler Geoff has worked in many aspects of horticulture and environment for 38 years.

He has been involved with tree assessment and maintenance during that time. He has been self

employed for 18 years, during which time he has undertaken tree assessment work in Canberra,

including preparation of tree management plans and conservation management plans. His main


of 37

February 2010

areas of work have been centred on National Lands in the ACT for the NCA and private

contractors working for the NCA.

Dr Greg Moore Greg was Principal of Burnley College (Melbourne) for 20 years and Head of the

School of Resource Management, University of Melbourne for 5 years. He is interested in

horticultural plant science, revegetation, ecology, and all aspects of arboriculture (the scientific

study of the cultivation and management of trees). He has written one book, contributed to two

others and had 90 papers and articles relating to trees published.

Ms Lyndal Plant Lyndal is the Principal Urban Forest Policy Officer with Brisbane City Council.

She is a graduate of James Cook University and a Churchill Fellow with 20 years experience in

local government tree management. Lyndal recently completed a review of Brisbane City

Council's tree policies.


of 37

February 2010

APPENDIX C PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT

SHARE YOUR VIEWS ON TREES IN CANBERRA

The Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment is undertaking an Investigation

into the Government’s tree management practices and the Renewal of Canberra’s urban

forest.

Terms of reference are at: www.envcomm.act.gov.au

As part of the Investigation the Commissioner is conducting two forums to:

• inform community participants of some issues relating to tree

• management and the urban forest in the ACT;

• identify issues for consideration for the report on the investigation;

• provide information on how the public might participate in the

Investigation, particularly through making submissions.

You are invited to join the Commissioner on

Thursday 11 February 2010, 6-8:30 pm

Ainslie Football Club, 52 Wakefield Avenue, Ainslie

OR

Monday 15 February 2010, 6-8:30 pm

Bradman Room, Manuka Oval, Canberra Ave, Griffith

Everyone is welcome to attend


of 37

February 2010

APPENDIX D COMMUNITY FORUM PROCEEDINGS

Investigation into the Government’s tree management practices and the

renewal of Canberra’s urban forest

Community Forum –Ainslie Football Club

11 February 2010

6.00pm Welcome and Purpose Maxine Cooper 6:05pm Facilitator introduces process Lincoln Hawkins 6.10pm Trees in the urban environment Mr Geoff Butler (Reference Panel member) 6.25pm Tree Management in ACT

• Public area tree management Fleur Flannery

• NCA Issues Gary Rake

• Tree Protection in the ACT Richard Allen 6.50pm Question and answer session Lincoln Hawkins Activity - Identification of Important issues 7.00pm Break 7.10pm Involvement/Feedback Discussion Forum 7.55pm Group Discussions 8.25pm Closure Lincoln Hawkins


of 37

February 2010

Investigation into the Government’s tree management practices and the

renewal of Canberra’s urban forest

Community Forum – Manuka Oval Bradman Room

15 February 2010

6.05pm Welcome and Purpose Maxine Cooper 6:10pm Facilitator introduces process Lincoln Hawkins 6.15pm Trees in the urban environment Dr Dianne Firth (Reference Panel member) 6.40pm Tree Management in ACT

• NCA Issues Gary Rake

• Public area tree management Fleur Flannery

• Tree Protection in the ACT Richard Allen 6.55pm Question and answer session Lincoln Hawkins Activity - Identification of Important issues 7.05pm Break 7:15pm Discussion Forum Feedback 8.00pm Group Discussions 8.20pm Closure Lincoln Hawkins


of 37

February 2010

APPENDIX E COMMUNITY FORUM PRESENTATIONS

Forum Presentations:

‘Renewal of the ACT Urban Forest – the Big Issues’ Geoff Butler, Horticultural and Environmental

consultant (11 February)

Geoff briefly presented a series of key issues of concern: replanting processes, urban

compression, climate change, species selection, invasiveness, research into suitable species,

preservation of the historical landscape of the national capital, significant trees register, tree

protection legislation, solar issues, fruit crops, sustainability of urban areas of wildlife, degrees of

risk, appropriate tree management policies and resources, consultation and communication, and

community involvement.

He emphasized that tree management and renewal of Canberra’s urban forest is a very long term

project that must be commenced. He believes that there is across-the-board political recognition

of the urban forest issues, and encouraged the community to appreciate the issues and provide

appropriate support for the renewal process.

‘Trees and Canberra’, Dr Diane Firth, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture University of

Canberra (15 February)

Dr Firth encouraged people to put in submissions to the OCSE as residents need to be heard. She

provided background to Canberra and its development, presenting the Griffin vision and the fact

that the urban forest was part of the vision that the city’s planners and developers have worked.

Key points raised included:

Canberra was built on degraded agricultural land, overrun with rabbits. Therefore, fencing was

required before any planting and kept them out of the nursery.

Canberra is considered as a “City in the landscape” by design. When planning it is important to

understand soils, trees, seasons, frost problems, floods, drought, and winds. Windbreaks were

planned using a selection of propagated suitable species (selection undertaken with advice from

other states’ botanical gardens).

Trees were selected for verge width and aesthetics – for summer shade and winter sun – needing

the balance. In addition, planners sought low fire risk trees…some of these trees are now listed as

environmental weeds.

Native trees are planted adjacent to native parks. Many of Canberra’s residents trees were from

free issue program so there was some control over the species planted…”we can learn a lot from

the past”.


of 37

February 2010

National Capital Authority (NCA), Gary Rake, CEO.

Trees in Canberra today are a gift from generations past – we need to look at the gift we give to

future generations. NCA will look closely at the recommendations from this investigation, and

where it can, it will apply them; but NCA has some different constraints and legislation to the ACT

government. The NCA also seeks to keep trees as healthy as possible. NCA is working hard to

change and improve its consultation and communications. Before Christmas NCA needed to

remove 600 trees that were dying or rotten. A community meeting was held, followed by a walk

through the trees to look at them in situ. This process was helpful for the NCA and residents.

There will be another community meeting regarding Dunrossil trees in Yarralumla during March

Public Area Tree Management: Fleur Flanery: Manager Urban Forest Renewal Program

Canberra is often regarded as a city in the landscape. Canberra’s urban forest is made up of over

one million trees, There are of the order of 650,000 trees in public arena, managed by the ACT

Government - 450,000 in nature strips and mown parks. Most of Canberra’s trees were planted

in one of the two main plantings:

•Pre 1930, deciduous and evergreen and generally found in the older parts of Canberra

• 1955-1975, mainly Eucalypt and hardy natives in a time of rapid growth for the city.

These trees are aging and reaching the end of their life simultaneously. They also need greater

levels of maintenance to minimise risk to community and property. 185,000 dead or dangerous

trees have been removed over the past 6 years.

The ACT Government committed to an Urban Forest Renewal Program in order to respond to this

challenge and maintain and enhance the urban forest. ANU research has contributed to planning

and assessment. Trees are here for a long time…well past the lives of different governments, so

they need to be considered into the future. Whilst there are funds for the removal of trees, there

is not always budget for the replacement of trees. A dedicated long term program is required.

Further information is at

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0007/156427/fact_sheet_urban_forests_rev7_

3_12_08.pdf


of 37

February 2010

Tree Protection in the ACT: Richard Allen TAMS

The Tree Protection Unit receives approximately 2000 requests per year for tree assessment and

removal or pruning of trees on leased land. Unacceptable risks need to be managed immediately.

Assessment of risks is undertaken by different authorities and arborists, and management of a

tree’s health is preferred, to removal.


of 37

February 2010

APPENDIX F COMMUNITY FORUM - ISSUES AND OUTCOMES

Outcomes from Community Forum (Ainslie)

11 February 2010

A: IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY ISSUES FOR THE INQUIRY

(YELLOW STICKERS) Note: issues were identified by individuals then grouped during the meeting for further

consideration. Alphabetical listing below is by topic group

Benefits

• Indigenous trees of cultural significance

• Solar shading

• Potential for storm harvesting/diversion for trees particularly during

establishment

Climate Change

• How to optimise our urban habitat via trees in our new climate?

• Will the new trees live, given climate change?

Communication

• Educating all about the longevity of trees on nature strips-residents help in

watering and car parking

• A thorough consultation process needed between house owners and

government well before trees are removed

• Community consultation for street tree removal especially for developments e.g

not because they are unhealthy but because they are in the way.

• Taking community on a long journey requires more care and sincere investment

• Opportunity to use your community groups.i.e. give plants to landcare groups etc

• Open communication between ACT government and community. (websites

blogs??)

Costs

• Insufficient funds for management/maintenance of every tree

• Why don’t we realise the economic return from removed trees? Instead of

mulching, sell to timber merchants for firewood or woodworking

• How to convince ACT and Federal government to guarantee sufficient funds/staff

to handle the urgent management issues promptly

• Are the criteria used for removal of trees the same for private land, NCA land and

ACT land? If not how do they differ?

Decision Making

• Register of significant trees, How to reactivate it for urban forest individuals.

• What is the vision for the urban forest? How is this vision documented?

• Possible overlaps of government departments in managing the urban forests—

merge into one department?

• How can we have least amount of time without trees in streets?


of 37

February 2010

• How is the decision reached to remove heritage/good tree specimens, if they are

“weed species”? i.e. Lake B. Griffin willows

• Why does ACTEW boast the planting of 10,000 Mallee trees in regional Australia

when locally obtained profits could be used locally?

Habitat

• Hollow trees might be seen as dead but provides critical habitat for birds/animals

• What is your attitude towards “dead” trees?

• Habitat structures may be a good idea during removal of trees to create artificial

habitats for animals who may become homeless with the removals

• Increase in biodiversity must be major consideration with all new trees

• Older/dead trees are homes of native wildlife

Investigation /Inquiry

• Where is the funding for community groups to make submissions that can

compete with government and industry

• How is the inquiry staffed?

• When was a tree advisor employed? What is his background?

• How many submissions have you received? Where do they come from? What

about extensions for submissions?

• What are the qualifications of the steering committee, management team,

community ref. Groups, etc?

• What is happening about hazardous trees during the time of the investigation?

Maintenance

• Sufficient crew for managing urban forest?

• Who is responsible for removal of gum leaves and rubbish from the forest?

accumulation in drains and nature strips.

• Is the advice on TAMS website re watering nature strip trees by the public, still

current?

• Significant trees- should be any healthy tree which has been well established for

five years or more, approx a quarter of its expected life, developers hate trees

• How to have community acceptance of program?

Planning

• Compaction /parking/interference in areas around trees

• Are there measures in place to encourage developers to plan new suburbs with

verges sufficient for eucalypts?

• Prevent cars parking on verges and compacting soil (puts street trees at risk)

policing and/or big fines.

• Measurement of spatial issues

• Nature strip verges are some of the worst environments for tree growth

Research

• Track recorded evidence? (over crowded??) Credibility, open info = trust

• Mapping of trees(carbon sink) carbon trading accounting purposes

• All policy based on sole study from ANU 10 yrs ago, when will the next study be

done??


of 37

February 2010

• Too much of tree management appears to be branch falls/tree goes. We need

better risk management.

• Experts overstate risks then governments respond to them....there is no stopping

point yet (until we have only shrubs)

• Definition/identifying improvements leave and risk

Solution

• Replacing tree services- like when in drains

• Street co-operatives

• Government illusion land sales for income. Smaller blocks/narrow verges = more

income

• Poor/unsuitable street trees replaced

• Friends of the trees- staff allocation to support tree care

• Think global plant local

• Tree “rights” with respect to sustainability and/or property development

• Is it overkill to require new suburbs to have no tree canopies over-lapping in

order to “reduce” bushfire hazards

• What about our native grassland plants- this was always wooded grasslands not

forests

• Change the European mindset

• Trees are valuable enough to warrant redesign of landscape to water trees, this

gives better longevity

• How to allow design innovation despite regulations? The urban forest is a

continuum like a family. Members die and are born

• The Canberra community has no experience of trees reaching the end of life. The

new experience of renewal of the urban forest needs to be embraced by its

community.

B: REASONS, IDEAS AND COMMENTS - ‘WHY” ARE THE ISSUES IMPORTANT TO YOU

(THOUGHT CARDS)

• SOLISTACIA (sense of loss following destruction of landscape)

o keep some momentum and use an adaptive or prospective management

approach. We need to experiment and gather evidence; kept openly - gathered

by citizens wherever possible. Engage and resource government and community.

o Invest in trust. Rate payers are very engaged - either negatively or positively.

Government has power and needs to actively work to transfer it to the people.

o Maxine’s open and information rich approach is greatly appreciated.

• Have you put ad’s in the paper yet about community consultation? Information

sharing. Making informed decisions

• Re-design of city/urban infrastructure to protect trees. e.g. stormwater capture

to water street trees.

o Urban environments should be built around trees and to preserve trees rather

than the urban environment having priority.

• Read “UP BY ROOTS” by James Urban, International Society of Arboriculture

(available from Isaac) Send staff to James’ workshop. How can we get funding to

have a full-time employee working on the tree register? Case study- eucalyptus

stellulata. Save the logs from fallen trees , they are fixed carbon.

• We are not just users of great services - we are citizens with responsibility.

Community = TAMS. Collaboration with trees. (Val B)


of 37

February 2010

• Strict enforcement of preservation of healthy street trees - they should not be

removed for frivolous purposes.

• Economic use of trees once over mature - use for woodcarving, furniture, coffins

• Remove invasive species eg celtis australis that have appeared in the Aranda

bush land and in the woodland east of Mt Ainslie, and replace with species that

are rare and threatened e.g Mugga Ironbark Esideroxylon used by swift parks

(Peter O)

C: QUESTIONS RAISED IN GROUP DISCUSSION

• Who sets the level of risk? Is it published anywhere? o NCA :Wants to understand issues of property damage if tree fails. NCA gives priority

to tree repair rather than full removal – modify and regenerate health if possible.

o ACT :risks are associated with species and locations – need a more active

maintenance program – Urban Forest program is trying to assess risk profile before

problem solving

• The forest produces a tremendous amount of rubbish. Who is responsible for

removing fallen limbs, gum leaves (often very heavy covers).

• Need to identify different species, economic values, suggest tenders could be left to

wood workers or used as firewood rather than just chipping

• Also look at long term strategy – can do large scale urban replacement on selling

trees to cover cost of removal. If contractor can remove trees , they can plant

another in its place.

• How many submissions have been received? OCSE response: eight submissions so far.

OCSE is looking for substance in the submission…so the deadline can be extended if you

contact OCSE. A meeting with the Ornithological Society is scheduled for 19 February to

discuss trees’ and birds’ relationships and needs.

• Why was an elder of the land not invited to discuss the Corroborree Park tree issues?

He felt his submission re grasslands had been not been considered, and was

concerned that in this investigation into trees, the original country as grasslands may

be ignored. Trees do need to be maintained but also need grassland and woodland

balance.

• There is an opportunity to be connected to the land, and exploring sense of place.

The ACT government could be inspiring the community and building the capacity of

communities who are being represented by the government

• What are the qualifications of the people on the Advisory Panel? Participants were

directed to the information on OCSE website, the list of advisors were read out and provided

information provided It was explained that the Commissioner is consulting with indigenous

individuals and groups, even though there is not an indigenous member of the panel

• How are we to rebuild the resilience in forests, grasslands woodlands and

shelterwoods in the future? The opportunity is there to plan and manage changes to

climate change. We need to look back over past 90 years and correct the mistakes of

the past and start planning for the future.

• Climate change issue: trees will become more relevant than they have been in the

past – trees can be quite significant ACT wide – critical need for criteria to measure

In Ijong St Braddon, TAMS requested the removal of two

healthy trees to put in a circular driveway for garbage bin

removal-instead of curbside collection or a single drive

in/drive out arrangement as most multi-unit

developments in the area have, it seems TAMS (who also

have responsibility for tree protection, does not always

perform that function.)


of 37

February 2010

extent and success of suburbs and management of forests. Need to deal with

common issues.

• Braddon is losing trees at a great rate. There are huge gaps. Trees are being removed

to allow access by developers.

• Older house and development designs were around trees. Now the new areas are

just knocking down the trees.

• We need to look forward to look for the forest and see the trees at the same time.

The forest is a continuum – it grows and dies and needs to be replaced with many

different trees. Grasslands need to be acknowledged.

• Need to develop a vision for our urban forest, whether looking backwards or

forwards or at changes in the urban forest. NCA: we need to test trees to see if most

suitable for a particular location.

• Need to avoid situation of street planting disappearing and dropping out. Within the

Urban Forest Program there has been a lot of work going into what will be replanted

– why it is happening, what is good for climate? A very active Urban Forest advisory

group meet every month to discuss species development and performance.

• Canberra planted trees on an industrial scale – over 40 years have lost the industrial

training for maintenance. Whereas once there were trained government crews, now

the work is undertaken by contractors who have a different attitude to tree

maintenance. Need to re implement training and urban depots – localized so that

crews know their areas.

• There is a general lack of respect for the grasslands – they are disappearing; and as a

feature of the landscape this is concerning. Losing recreation areas of mixed planting.

This loss needs to be addressed.

• Need respect for other’s points of view.

• This forum is only a step in the journey. Commissioner reiterated that she is happy to

discuss issues with anyone who wishes to

• Need information, fact sheets with the specifics of why certain trees need to be

removed. The community won’t get overloaded! It needs to be informed.

Key issues arising from this discussion were summarised in a diagram (below) for the forum to

further consider.


of 37

February 2010

CHANGE

ISSUES

TREE

MANAGEMENT

RISKS

CANBERRA’s

URBAN FOREST

Urban change

Climate change

Ageing trees

Safety

URBAN

FOREST

RENEWAL

Time

$$$$

A Valuable asset

COMMUNITY

PARTICIPATION & INFORMATION

The Landscape Character


of 37

February 2010

D: SMALL GROUP SESSIONS

1. TREE MANAGEMENT RISKS

• Removing trees: Risks include:

o Climate change

o Wildlife extinction

o Removing habitat old growth trees

o Birds possums

• Falling wood and leaves - habitat…education

• Increased temperature (from tree loss): risk of being killed by extreme temps

• FIRE – keep fire breaks clear: no repeat of 2003

• Planting short killed species; replace what didn’t work

2. COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

• Sharing responsibilities – with TAMS, with trees

• Iconic streets

• TAMS website? Watering on nature strips..inadequate information

• TREE KEEPERS – community support high

• Unclear communication – opportunities

o Information about shared care for nature strips

o Communicating through community groups

o Citizen lobbying for more resources for TAMS

o Communicating different program within TAMS

• How does planning integrate trees?- planning for treescape

o Observing DA planning rules

o Intra agency coordination/communication – ACTPla and TAMS

o Proactive – visioning – not reactive

• Decision making:

o Trees and forests

o Horses for course

o Valuing diversity

• On number of levels:

o Education engagement and acceptance and

o confirmation of the change

• Recognising continuum

o Managing the change

o Diversity of skilled people and professionals in communities (How to use?)

o Master plan needs to be responsive to diverse needs, and needs to recognise

social and cultural imperatives.

3. THE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF CANBERRA

• sustainable

• defining character

• don’t want to return to what it was

• remember the grasslands

4. THE CHANGE ISSUES

• Need a vision of the urban forest – layered:


of 37

February 2010

o as a city

o connections within the city

o suburbs

o streets

• Need participation process at each level

• Education – need change – to our vision of our city

• Community needs to be aware of number of current trees that will be lost – Estimated

400,000 trees will be lost in the next 20-40 years (60% of existing trees)

• It is an individual and shared issue: a shared landscape and a shared problem

• Need to educate people about the process – why trees stay/go - the continuum of decay,

decline, removal, replanting

• Change and fear:

o What mechanisms are used to remove trees?

o Resources $$$, education; need computer enhanced images to help educate

public; preparation growing fund

• Trees needs: space and water

• Personal property – trees are an asset and are critical - add value to a home

o Need to look at recording regulated or significant trees

o Removal of trees from the footpath – shade is gone, and the energy rating of a

property decreases – impacts on the property’s value

o Community Assets and private property assets: trees and their removal are

impacting on values.

• Carbon trading capabilities – generating funds trees presence or removal impact on this.

They need to be included in any management issues

o Need to create criteria to account for carbon trading to maximise benefit to the

community.

• Age: Trees are the same age as suburbs because of mass planting – even aged

stands…need to look at continuum forest

o Normalise the forest– with all ages and species

• Need to design suburbs with trees, not have them as an add-on

o Use treescapes as water retardation basins

o Could redesign slopes, capture runoff and stop urban drought and erosion

o Use runoff and rain to use water effectively

o Need collaborative planning

o Engineers need to learn more about hydraulic design

o Education of technical experts, landscape architects, and engineers is required

o Planting with future planning rather than planting for short term visuals and sales

(esp. new developments)

• CASE STUDY: Eucalyptus Stellulata (grow in Brindabellas)– supposed to be ideal street

trees. In 1993 many were planted –now none or very few because of drought

• Plant knowing the environment - trees need first use of runoff

• Need to consider what we’ve lost and what we could have done to keep them

• Problems of pathogens and pests when large same species planting


of 37

February 2010

Outcomes from Community Forum Manuka

15 February 2010

A: IDENTIFICATION OF TOP PRIORITY ISSUES FOR THE INQUIRY

(YELLOW STICKERS)

Community Information and Participation

• The Canberra community is interested in all of Canberra’s trees not just in their suburb

• Volunteers must be allowed to do more in landscaped areas

• Community support will only come if government is honest

• How can we help preserve and care for our street trees?

• Many trees have died in and around Jansoon Park. could this be related to the extraction

of bore water in the higher parts of Red Hill and Forrest?

• Why do NCA, TAMS and ACT government consider our trees to be nothing more than a

financial problem??

• Tree replacement not a natural consequence of tree removal because of lack of funding

• Community help with trees

• Community involvement in maintenance of nature strips etc

Communication/ Education

• How does community become informed?? What requirements are on developers?

• Selective renewal-not one size fits all, effective maintenance program, more accessible

information on key aspects

• When a tree that is identified as requiring removal, notification to residents nearby

should be done with opportunity for dispute

• How soon will a list of trees be circulated to the community which are proposed by local

tree experts as those to replace, and trees which have to be removed?

• Need clearer regulatory framework-when will survey of tree register occur?

• Urgent need for communication program to advise public how they can help save

stressed trees

• Focus is on large trees 12m. But speakers have represented a need to plant young trees.

What protection is there for young native trees in new developments?

• More emphasis/education for the public on the benefits-usually the impression gained is

that trees are first and foremost a problem

• Improved co-operation, communication sharing between agencies and departments

• Conflict between management for bird life and fire protection

• Early information provided to community. List of heritage trees, streets to be published

• Poor public venue-no mike for asking questions

• Improved communication and opportunities for input into planning and decision making

• Teaching public the appropriate trees/plants for Canberra (sectioned areas in nurseries)

• Why is clear felling allowed for “developers” e.g. at Kingston foreshores and the old

‘Fraser Court’ in Kingston?

Cost

• Resources required

• Does the ACT Government want to be responsible for trees> would it not be better to

have an independent fully funded organisation?


of 37

February 2010

• Lack of foresight with maintenance budget. 7 million doesn’t seem enough? Bring back

horticultural apprentices managed by territory government.

• Needs for supplementary funding to enable urban forest planning for climate change

• The budget for tree surgery, how can we help?

• Properly funded tree management programme.

Heritage/Landscape

• Seasonal change indicators

• Our trees need to be treated as an asset and need to be treated as all other government

assets on a dollar basis

• Protection of trees

• Image of garden city is being lost......to street trees and reserve trees. It is a loss of

cultural heritage

• Landscape value; social, economic, environmental. Where the recognition that

landscapes offers returns is, not just costs?

• Protection of trees (in public areas) that are in a heritage area - and with life span much

greater than 70 years.

• Replanting street trees

• All remnant eucalypts should be protected/kept in the landscape i.e. don’t need a special

application for specific protection

• Bird habitat

• There should be a balance between removal and replacement. For every tree removed a

tree should be replanted when a tree that is identified as requiring removal. Notification

to residents nearby should be done with opportunity for dispute.

• Corridors of established mature eucalypts along major roads should be better

valued/appreciated as places for birds/wildlife to access suburbs and between the

various nature reserves.

• Would it not be better to protect all trees as a matter of course-then process applications

for removal from the tree register tree by tree?

Maintenance

• Lack of water

• Care for the existing trees and the replacement of trees involves professionals and

community. Lack of care= 60% babies die therefore time and money is lost and leads to

desecration

• Residential - continual maintenance of old trees can financially strain families. Who pays

for this? E.g. old trees with old or ill people.

• Care of existing trees- seeing sick trees is heart breaking

• Many troubles to trees is because of bad management and interference to root systems

• Trim/ replace with smaller trees-government cost/owner cost

• Maintenance of strong tree streetscape for visual and physical amenity

• There doesn’t appear to be any street tree maintenance programs

• If refused permission to remove a damaged tree - and it causes harm, who takes

responsibility?

• Developers seem to have no problem in destroying existing trees by clear felling

• Is the NCA interested in anything other than developing land? Is it not just about million

dollar properties

• Management AGL needs to be more interested in the first 15 years and at the same time

leave alone root zone and base of tree


of 37

February 2010

Planning/ Vision

• Is there a risk from tree branches growing above powerlines? (More than 1.5 metres

above) what can be done to save the urban forest and put power lines under ground??

• Street and park trees only to be replaced if dead or dying and replacements watered,

pruned and checked. New trees in Yarralumla not looked after and lots died.

• Register or log of all street and urban park trees. Government dispute they planted our 2

groups of ornament. Across the road 5-7 years ago, they never looked after them and

only 1 is healthy

• Is there a need to get the community and government to understand tree removal is a

normal part of the urban forest?

• Appropriate species, return of shrubs especially wattles.

• Better management of native trees

• Context and decision making; landscape, social, climate

• Protection of trees in Northbourne Avenue

• Preservation of the principle of greenbelts in all suburbs

• Care of existing trees-seeing sick trees is heartbreaking

• What is the strategic vision and direction that is driving this process?(across all levels of

design and management)

• Preservation of the priority of greenbelts in all suburbs

• To what extent is the normal lifespan of the trees taken into account? E.g. what if the

trees normally have a lifespan much greater than 70 years?

• Canberra’s water situation is not like Melbourne’s

• New suburbs between Western Creek and Belconnen- green corridors how close to water

source? How close to houses?

• Are the trees that are removed recorded and used as a basis for planting/planning?

• Visionary re climate change for the rest of the country given we feel it affects a lot

• Make provision for neighbours to mediate contentious trees

• Increasing total number of trees

• 50% plot ratio combined with smaller lots.(there will not be any trees in Gungahlin)

• Penalising inner Canberra property owners who can’t develop to 50%.

• Systematic replacement of trees in manner which maintains land value via amenity,

environmental benefits

• Regulating contractors- I do not believe the contractors only clear trees identified by ACT

government/ NCA staff

• Tree selection- as climate change and existing plantings are recognised as poor choices

ACT must select better landscape supplements

• Community notification- local residents must be notified when parkland trees are

identified for removal

• Proper replacement, grow them to a sturdy size, stop using little vulnerable babies use

historic example of Western

• Long term landscape planning is needed before planting, the landscape planning needs to

be city wide

• Protection of large beautiful trees in public spaces

• A visible clear plan of tree management so we can all see and know; what, why, where,

when, how and who.

• Why is the discussion focused around trees, as distinct from the other structural

components of the urban forest - other vegetation and plant communities

• Tree damage costs, footpaths, drainage, danger to house people, new suburbs no room

for trees


of 37

February 2010

Regulation/ Legislation

• 50% plot ratio should include active way, POS.

• Management of urban parks

• Legislation must be widened include government management of land and commercial

leases

• Trees on public land should be regulated as tightly, if not more tightly than those on

private land

• Trees require care not over regulation

• Would like to see subsidisation of maintenance costs for those forced to maintain a tree

under the Tree Protection Act

• 14 day period for consideration needs to be extended to allow sufficient time for

applicants to arrange inspections and reports

Replacement

• Replanting upon removal

• Shade, where is it required?

• Independent assessment of a decision by the conservators. Reconsideration by the

conservators seems to defeat the purpose of the reconsideration, a little like asking a

plumber to certify their own work.

• Use of timber and waste as resource timber or fuel for alternative energy to help pay for

active maintenance

• Balance solar access to private roofs with beauty/amenity values of trees in streets and

gardens

• The regulation of trees on leased land is a negative

• Removal of healthy trees, why?

• Replacing/replanting now of trees being removed

• I deplore the arbitrary assessment that 70 years is a life span of any tree and trees over

70 years will be removed (as seen on Stateline ABC)

B: THOUGHT CARDS

• Re-invest in the employment of horticultural apprentices, the garden city needs

horticulturalists( not landscape managers and contract manages)

• Whole of life costing for the ongoing meeting of urban plantings refer NSW Community

Land Management- Plans of Management

• It seems the Tree Protection Act does apply to unleased territory so long as the tree is

considered as a registered tree and the powers to be (territory officers) want to

recognise the tree as such. The landscape/aesthetic category is where these trees can be

protected

• The tree protection legislation does nothing for the emerging species.

• How do we ensure that our street Grant Crescent will be assessed appropriately and a

consultative process with community members will take place?

• What happens to the trees that have been removed? Can they be used for building? Can

others like dead tree branches be used in a furnace for producing electricity, like the ones

operating in Japan?

• Within TAMS there should be an understanding that all trees would be lost if the

redevelopment of blocks is allowed to remove all trees and not replant. Furthermore

there needs to be solar rights between blocks for solar panels. We need more solar and

we need more street trees.

• Does information on TAMS website still apply? E.g. ‘give a tree a drink’ can we apply this?


of 37

February 2010

• What amount is spent on removal, replacement, maintenance?

• How can we be assured that there will be communication with Grant Cres, Griffith

residents? We are lined with American Elms. We have not seen any maintenance or

pruning for many years. As residents we have enquired and requested this to be done, to

no avail! We have requested and suggested numerous solutions that we would

participate in with no response. Answers please?

• Please only replace dead or dying trees. Please water, prune and check replacement

trees. 4-5 years ago new gums were planted along the bike path in Yarralumla between

Weston St and Bentham St and all died through neglect. Along the bike path on the

corner Gunn and Western 5-7 years ago 7 ornamentals planted and never looked after.

One tree healthy, others struggling and several reverted to root stock. Virtually

impossible to get them pruned. Local residents have tried to look after them concern that

new plantings will not be looked after and will die. What is more concerning is the

Government now say they didn’t plant them and I and residents can confirm they did.

• Tree Protection Act (2005) must be extended to cover all trees including those on public

land

• Case study; Swindon St, Downer- mass removal of native trees resulted in Adenuded St

with no replanting/poor maintenance. Loss of street appeal

• Wildlife habitat is more important to maintain. Protect native birds and animals

• Maintenance of trees-I question ‘aging’ of trees. It seems more about public liability and

cost of maintenance rather than keeping/maintaining older more mature trees

• Public education/mass tree plantings needed.

• Are our public trees recorded as a public asset at a proper value? They should be entered

in the government’s balance sheet. We do not ask for public comment on other assets-

i.e. Roads, footpaths. Why don’t we let our experts get on with the process of taking care

of our trees?

• Trees versus development: Trees for wildlife - Continuity planting.

o We have the test bed for all decisions re tree types, so we need a new Canberra

Tree list

o Funding for tree removal and tree replanting should be linked

o Need a fire proof tree list e.g. wattles species wet trees – no more pine trees

o Watering trees from gutters; ensure standards of tree planting positioning

o Long term tree planting schedule

o Small sapling whips exist better than standard trees

• For every tree removed – five need to be replanted; and there should be an overlap

minimum of five years between replant and removal i.e. importance of Continuity...and

water dish

• Tree removal is all about land values – big dollar developers don’t want to be stopped

• Planting schemes small trees up to large then small again for reduction in eddies and

wind to deflect up and over,

C: QUESTIONS RAISED IN GROUP DISCUSSION

The following two points were raised by participants at the beginning of the evening:

• Will the process actually reach the important issues? Acknowledging that it may be a

nicely thought out process, but does the facilitator and OCSE have any personal agendas

and priorities? The process should be fair and transparent

• Experts need to be involved also, as otherwise the process doesn’t bring out the real

issues about which people are concerned.


of 37

February 2010

The group discussion points:

• the cost of contractors per tree? Why can’t they be replacing when they are

removing? Why can’t residents do it on their own?

• Response: Tree is assessed by crew, put on register, then reassessed by an arborist then

publicly tendered for contractors.

• Better information required for public participation in management of street

trees…suggest pamphlet. Participant suggested information should be in shop fronts o Response: there is brochure on TAMS website on how to care for trees in dry times.

Urban Forest Program intended to start tree keeping program to help residents look

after trees, and community information program…which has been discontinued

whilst the Investigation is underway.

• Maintenance investment needs to be made – case of 1927 house and trees ( Murray

Crescent Griffith) impacting property and not being maintained o Response: The old cyclic approach was replaced by the responsive /reactionary

approach. Cyclic maintenance approach -based on the collected data of health of

trees, could be reconsidered

• Disputes between neighbours need mechanisms to resolve

• Language/terminologies used by Government - is it a garden city or an urban forest –

creates different images. Is the use of urban forest a clever way of saying “too many

trees”? Response: Terminology is under investigation

• Tree spacing – originally too close – need to start thinning so that some can grow

properly rather than all being crowded.

• Urban forest term is appealing – Canberra is a city of trees – Green belts are

important especially in new areas as vistas

• What protection is available for trees on public land? o Response: EPBC Legislation (The Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999) applies to trees on National land

Heritage controls, Nature Conservation Act, Roads and Public Places Acts apply to

Territory land

• How do we manage replacement process to maintain amenity and control? Impact?

o What are patterns of tree removal and that will keep amenities?

o Issues: Cool cities down, land value, access

• Reserve areas – boundaries between suburbs are integral to Canberra – green bands

– relies on community organisations – needs funding for maintenance of those areas

• Aging of trees: need 100 years to develop useable wildlife hollows – Example also of

use of flowers - very important for birds as food source when migrating south

o Urban forests very important; correct species important e.g. River Gums and

Tasmanian Blue gum are not suitable for urban planting

o Does the 55-year life of trees include species that don’t perform well in

Canberra?

• There is no longer any understory plantings. Cootamundra Wattle is now considered

to be an environmental pest because they were overplanted. Under planting of

Wattles – put back in the landscape

• Communication – why wait until June 2010 for communication to help protect trees?

People want to know what to do to assist stressed trees now.

• Tree protection legislation – in future less trees will be covered – will this lead to

mass tree removal?

• Pause of the Urban Forest Program seen by community to be due to outcry over

healthy trees being removed i.e. Corroborree Park, Captain Cook Cres. Community

representatives still do not understand the basis of the removal


of 37

February 2010

• Replacement of trees around Manuka Oval (10 years ago) - although the review panel

requested advice on removal and replanting of trees...there is no evidence that

replanting has occurred or will occur. Who checks that the planting takes place?

• Two suggestions:

o Implement a public educational program about the right plants and choices

for Canberra

o Schools to be given help in facing climate change, as they are currently

planting inappropriate trees in schools

• This forum as part of consultation, needs to be different to experience with earlier

government consultations – “Community gets tired of being patronized” –

participants want to be consulted and considered seriously and decisions taken in

response

• Who helps people who are elderly, disabled, or sick, take care of trees on their

private land, pay for maintenance, help people care for and take responsibility?

• Irony – world wants to plant trees. ACT Government appears to wants to remove

trees.

• What is the carbon impact of this program of removal of trees? o Response: An area for consideration in the Investigation Further information will be

available. The Urban Forest program is about how we sustain and enhance the forest.

Despite media statements, there has never been a decision about how many trees

will be removed or replaced, and the whole planning of the program involves

community engagement

• Publication on the growth of the Canberra landscape is required – landscape history;

lessons learned; as this has not been available in the past

• need to stress the visual importance of tree landscape – whether street, house or

bush land, as distinct from work being undertaken by arborist on single trees

• Example was given of possibility of city beautification via planned appropriate

planting in Dubbo.

D: SMALL GROUP SESSIONS

1. COMMUNITY INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION

• Need an 1800 number ( or an email service) to an arborist to seek advice on planting

• Need to advise the community about the decision to be made –

o a clear community communication program i.e. these trees in red tape will be

replaced i.e. info in newspaper –

• Use the community as a tool i.e. replanting trees – partnership programs.

• At nurseries – provide profile information on plants for Canberra i.e. what plants will do

well in these conditions

• Need independence of arborist, and is the advice implemented?

• Involve schools – plant more trees to educate school children e.g. native gardens

• Have a Children’s Garden e.g. in Botanical Gardens as in Melbourne Botanical Gardens

• Info about what Canberra looked like originally – i.e. before planting and now should be

easily available

• Not enough “young” people engaged – need to get these involved

o What is their vision? – it is their future

• Profile the top 10 special trees in the ACT e.g. bent tree in Corroboree Park is a living

sculpture


of 37

February 2010

2. TREE REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

• Maintenance of newly planted trees is needed as they continually die.

o Don’t do formative pruning, and root stock takes over.

• Species selections – need to learn lessons of past planting

• Plant/replace trees that offer effective protection against UV in popular areas – i.e.

school settings, bus stops etc

• Planting trees in narrow spaces still need to get vertical element in landscape particularly

when trees have been there and removed

• Educate/train people who plant trees so that the new trees are not planted under

existing trees

• Contracts need to be written to plant trees properly

• Carbon from maintenance vehicles isn’t captured by trees, when replacing trees all over

town

• Don’t have enough money to manage existing trees

• $20 million to arboretum…but what about street trees budget?

• No water is going into the landscape – public cannot water – cannot afford the $4/10000

litres = best outcome = urban woodland wide spacing to grow without irrigation

• Need to thin trees – spacing of trees not sustainable – start thinning to protect existing

trees.

• The amount of consultation happening uses money that could go to maintenance crews

and get work done on the ground

• Land in Canberra is engineered for water runoff into storm water drains – runs away from

trees, not into the soil

• No pest and disease maintenance – spraying

• Need people to help public with their trees

• Letting tree removal numbers build up for a year, puts it in the public eye, - better to do

in small lots

• Marking trees when don't have money to remove them gives false expectations - better

to mark just before removal

• Who pays for removal of trees on private land if the resident cannot pay?

o If forced to keep the tree in the back yard then the govt should pay

• Need good tree crews with highly skilled operators

• Many current trees problems result from disturbance to root zone – health problems, too

much maintenance up top, and no policing at base

3. REGULATIONS AND LEGISLATION

• Community and government may be communicating, but in the end it is the legislation

that determines what happens

• There is a big gap in the legislation – we can protect trees on our own land but nowhere

else

o Suggest extending current legislation to all trees

• Why is the legislation different for leasehold and public trees?

• Canberra seems to have a very short memory – 2003 fires

o the notion of an urban forest is disturbing

• Legislation needs to look at balancing the landscape and quality of life against trees of

the landscape and the cost of doing these things... e.g. money, safety and risk

• Suggestion: Carbon credits – why don’t lease landholders who have to retain trees under

the Tree Protection Act, get reimbursement via carbon credits? At present those with

these trees get nothing back for keeping them

• People wanting to cut or remove trees should get legal advice


of 37

February 2010

• Government has a duty of care to provide adequate trees for shade in schools especially

high schools ( where students rarely wear hats)

• Regulating and accountability of arborists is required

o Who checks on them?

o Are they truly qualified?

o Which arborists check the trees needs?

o Who checks that the designated trees are chopped , and not others (as

contractors make more money per tree)

o No faith in trees being properly assessed

• There is no consistency in tree selection e.g. select poplar groups for Griffith Oval

o poor species selection, wrong for Canberra climate

• Who is responsible for the tree register? Nine years ago it was established, but there is

little or no information about it

• Are we clear felling stands?

• Need to make legislation coherent – consistency is needed between the public and

private lease areas

• all remnant eucalypts needs to be automatically registered ( if on unleased land) so that

each big tree with wildlife hollows does not have to be registered separately

o Case: Have applied to have some trees registered but nothing happened

• Wildlife corridors – need to be respected and valued for this attribute– especially down

the main road corridors like Coulter Drive that link the suburbs

4. VISION, PLANNING, CHANGE

• How will the enquiry measure cultural, social and carbon value?

• Needs a robust process

• Groups like AILA (Australian Institute of Landscape Architects) should be involved in more

detailed dialogue

community forum report - envcomm.act.gov.au€¦ · community forum report - investigation into act...

Documents