6 September 2024

Government adjusts tree protection laws following feedback

| James Coleman
Join the conversation
22
TCCS worker planting trees

The ACT Government wants to grow Canberra’s tree canopy coverage to 30 per cent by 2045. Photo: ACT Government.

Remember the days when you’d have to plant two new trees on your block for every established tree the government allowed you to remove?

Or pay a “financial contribution” of $1200 per tree removed if the government determines it “will not be possible to replant on the site”.

Well, there are changes to the ACT’s tree protection laws afoot “in the coming weeks”. But maybe don’t oil your chainsaw just yet.

The current laws came into effect on 1 January 2024 when the Tree Protection Act 2005 became the Urban Forest Act 2023 as part of a push to grow the city’s tree canopy cover to 30 per cent by 2045 (it’s currently around 20 per cent).

READ ALSO Ever wondered what one of Canberra’s oldest houses is like inside? Ruth is opening hers this spring

The rules became stricter: trees at least eight metres high (12 metres under the old Act) or with a circumference of at least one metre (1.5 metres formerly) are now protected – yes, even if they’re on private property.

And the penalties became higher.

A person who intentionally damages a protected tree will face a fine of up to $80,000 – up from $64,000.

But it turns out not everyone was happy with this.

“Following feedback since the legislation commenced, several amendments will be made to improve the Act’s operation without compromising on its objectives,” the government announced this week.

ACT park

Isaacs is the ACT suburb with the highest percentage of tree cover. Photo: ACT Government.

From now on, anyone whose block has a canopy cover of 30 per cent or more after the protected tree is removed will be exempt from having to plant replacements “if it is not feasible” (for example, they don’t have the space).

The government says it has also improved its approval systems to “reduce the average timeframes for processing tree activity applications”.

Yeah, they’re the only changes.

Between 1 January and 30 June, the ACT Government received 1145 requests to remove protected trees, 313 of which were rejected.

Minister for City Services Tara Cheyne said the government wants to make sure the rules are “supporting our tree canopy goals while not imposing an unnecessary burden”.

“We are addressing these issues now because they have been identified as unintended consequences of the drafting,” she said.

She also flagged another review of the rules in two years for “additional improvements”.

READ ALSO Wattle it be this year? So many beautiful trees to choose from

Around 500,000 new trees will need to be planted over the next 22 years, at a rate of around 22,700 per year, to meet the government’s target of 30 per cent cover.

Ms Cheyne said the target for the past year was exceeded, with more than 23,000 trees planted in urban Canberra over 2023-24.

“This brings the total number of trees planted since June 2020 to over 65,000, well above the target of 54,000 set in the Urban Forest Strategy,” she said.

In 2023-23, however, planting crews fell short of the 18,000 target by 5350 trees. This was attributed to a “variety of factors”, including procurement delays, limited contractor availability, persistent wet weather, limitations on suitable planting sites, as well as “refusal of street tree plantings by adjacent residents”.

two people planting a tree

TCCS workers planting trees. Photo: ACT Government.

The government has since “bolstered” the team of staff who tend the trees and promised “greater strategic focus to planting”.

“These new plantings have focused on providing trees to fill gaps in residential streets in areas vulnerable to heat, with low levels of canopy cover and where canopy levels are decreasing due to trees reaching the end of their life,” Ms Cheyne said.

For instance, plane trees will be planted “sparingly” from now on after a 2019 ANU report found that while “a beautiful streetscape addition and hardy to drought and frost”, they have their fair share of problems.

“There are considerable allergen concerns, in addition to an aggressive root system which damages pavement and infrastructure, dropped seeds which cause trip hazards, and release of irritants,” the government says.

A spokesperson for the Transport Canberra and City Services (TCCS) directorate has previously told Region the government is “open” to discussions over what species homeowners would prefer around their block.

Join the conversation

22
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The photo above of Isaacs is misleading – the majority of trees in Isaacs are Radiata pines left over from the commercial plantation. I believe the pines will be removed, when newly planted natives are well enough established.

Crikey. I would have commented earlier but I’ve been out raking all the gum leaves from the gutters and drains from the 15m + gums opposite us. Pretty much an all year job.
Great choice of street tree (not!!) – gums – leaf/ litter fall – block drains – enter our lakes – causes debris and blue green algae..

Lovely trees. Wrong location,
Should require a weekly street sweeping machine.
Wonder why I do it – the litter is not on private land.

What about my solar rights .and drains blockages.

GrumpyGrandpa2:35 pm 10 Sep 24

We have a semi-dead street tree and have been waiting for the government to either remove and replace the tree, or cut out the dead limbs.

After 6 months of waiting, I contacted Assess Canberra. The response was that staff have been busy, following recent high winds.

Maybe we wait for storm season & if mother nature brings down the tree down, we’ll get some action?

Gregg Heldon8:57 pm 10 Sep 24

Still waiting for debris to be taken away from the neighbourhood after the December high winds.

Protected dangerous trees putting property and lives at risk, this Barr Govt is out of touch .

Doesn’t care about people’s homes or children or safety , just his bubble ideas outside of reality

NSW doesn’t have to deal with such stupid protection ACTs

Hopefully Labour losses and it’s the first thing to be changed with a new govt

Rupert Samuel10:52 pm 09 Sep 24

I moved to Belconnen in part, because of the beautiful trees and wonderful birdlife they support. They’re such an incredible asset.

We need trees in a warming climate to shade all that thermal mass that comes with a city, such as black bitumen roads and fashionable black roofing that gets crazy hot in summer. Mature trees provide great shade and additional cooling via transpiration.

Old trees, while not as pretty, provide valuable habitat for native species. Recently some trees were saved in Scullin because of this. The trees look a bit rough, but the animals raised in them are beautiful, Galahs and Gang Gang Cockatoos among them. Local kids are learning their local birds and animals around these trees.

We need tree protection laws for the same reason we need anti-dumping laws – because sadly, some people will only do the right thing if they’re made to. I’ve heard a lot of talk in my 50+ years about people getting clobbered by tree limbs, but am yet to meet one, or anyone who has. I’m sure that it’s happened, but I’ll bet that you’re more likely to be run over. I won’t be chainsawing anyone’s car, y’know, just in case.

Treeless suburbs are becoming unlivable in Summer in western Sydney. We need to learn from their planning mistakes, protect our trees and get more in.

I know 2 people who have permanent disabilities now because of being hit by limbs falling off gum trees on their own property. One is paraplegic because of it.

I also know at least a few whos houses have been damaged fairly badly by gum trees. One of them, amusingly enough, had requested permission to remove the dead tree in their back yard on several occasions, with reports from arborists that said it was dead and dangerous. Those requests were rejected. Guess who paid the >100k repair bill for that once their insurance company found out about the multiple rejected reuests for removal… ACT rate payers is who. It was sheer luck somebody wasn’t killed.

There needs to be some common sense applied. Some types of tree just aren’t suitable for a suburban yard, because they present a well known danger.

Amanda Kiley5:39 pm 10 Sep 24

we have no problems with trees per se, as long as they are suburb suitable. Gum trees are lethal in suburbs as they drop no-longer-needed-branches when they aren’t viable. I gave had a near miss with one such branch. Our government insists on keeping gum trees in populated areas and so should take responsibility for the consequences.

Get out your chainsaws my fellow Canberrans and fight them in the burbs, fight them in the fields and fight them at the ballot box. We need to stop being victims and take back our town.

Will my 090 with a 72 inch bar suffice? 🤣

We need lots more community education on the importance of trees; sadly there are people who can find ways around mere laws (such as nibbling away at trees)

They should fine Barr and his colleagues for all the trees they removed from Northbourne Ave
Urban Vandalism

Amanda Kiley5:42 pm 10 Sep 24

No … it suited their purposes. Unless the trees are in the way of their agenda, they won’t be touched. They need to be voted out – their running ramshot over Canberra, with little regards for, well anything or anyone, needs to come to an end.

Donna Stewart2:36 pm 09 Sep 24

Best solution to avoid moronic legislation and implementation : don’t plant big trees.

Or chop them down before they fall under the legislation’s size criteria.

Scott Nofriends1:42 pm 09 Sep 24

We have a few large trees on my golf course that are old and becoming dangerous. The club applied to have them removed or replaced but the request was rejected.
Does this mean when any of these trees do eventually come down, if they cause injury or death, the government will be liable?

One of these days there is bound to be a mini cyclonic event that will affect the ACT and the devastation caused by misplaced trees will be of apocalyptic proportions!

Trish O'Connor9:52 pm 08 Sep 24

Does this apply to developers who clear every tree on a block and build apartments or single dwellings that take up the whole block. This is especially horrible in the older suburbs which have beautiful trees on the block and suddenly they are all gone. Probably the law seems to apply only to private owners.

HiddenDragon9:09 pm 08 Sep 24

“Yeah, they’re the only changes.”

So, as the ironic old saying goes, the beatings will continue until morale improves.

The grasping zealotry and fundamental mistrust of the public at the heart of this tree protection regime will continue to alienate increasing numbers of Canberra householders such that the arbitrary target of 30 per cent canopy cover will remain a mirage.

The inevitable failure of the current scheme will, no doubt, be an eventual pretext for a further doubling down on the control freakery which will, sooner or later, collapse under its own weight.

andrew brettargh4:28 pm 08 Sep 24

Still a moronic policy.. natural conclusion to letting eucalypts grow to 15m in the suburbs is that they die and fall on homes ..

Gregg Heldon11:34 am 08 Sep 24

What about all the dead gum trees that are around. Especially the gums that are next to paths and roads. Are they going to be removed?
What about the detritus underneath said trees?
I’m all for planting new trees but the dead ones need to be removed first.
Summer is coming and we could be living in a tinderbox.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.