Greens' Ainslie Volcanics Bill threatens independent planning system, says Steel

Eben Leaf that’s absolutely not the case. There are three alternatives that we would happily support. One being the destroyed (worse than degraded) section of the Grassland on the adjacent block. All have the same telecoms outcomes. It’s about balance. We’re not saying no tower, just not on this corner. If we could discuss the alternatives everyone could win. They can only put up the tower here if they hide it with trees. Government has paid for the removal of trees on this site because you don’t want trees in a Grassland. There are better locations really close, just not on the corner of a Grassland were restoring

Amy Jowers Blain that’s a joke. The conservator of fauna and flora themselves said the project had no negative ecological outcomes at the current site.

Eben Leaf I reckon if you asked him if the destroyed Grasslands was a better site, he’d say yes to that. What question are we asking him? What’s better for the developers or what’s better for the environment?

And by all means, let’s meet the Conservator on site, we’ve invited him many times

Eben Leaf the tower, that has already begun construction, is causing significant destruction to the regenerated grasslands through excavation and construction traffic on the grasslands. Have you ever tried to maintain a garden when there are tradies tramping all over your property? Or bringing in and using excavation equipment? The volunteers who have been rehabilitating this site have worked tirelessly for years to remove weeds and replant the native species, only for a corporation to be given free access to trample all over their work when the tower could be installed just down the road.

Eben Leaf Right? I can understand them being protective of the grasslands, particularly given how much work they’ve put in trying to rehabilitate the site. But it seems they also want control (and veto authority) over the surrounding area as well.

Andrew Donnellan how independent is it though when you deny the right of appeal and don’t properly engage community and environmental volunteers… All the companies need to do is say they considered alternatives but they weren’t suitable. There’s confirmation bias, they choose the site they want, then ask the government to approve that’s ok, they get reports that support what they want to do, not what’s the best environmental outcome. It’s not a robust system where the least environmental harm is selected. It’s a flawed system that lacks accountability. The ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment said she has never found an example of the ACT Government prioritising environmental conservation over development. That tells you everything about how the system is working.

The only good news stories have come through community advocacy challenging the government and demanding that environmental conservation be prioritised. That shouldn’t be the case, but clearly is.

This isn’t about not wanting the tower it’s about putting it on the already destroyed block adjacent or further up our block or at the back – all are infinitely preferable to us and deliver the same telecoms outcome. It’s just rigidity from the company and government who won’t even discuss it or visit the site with us

Russell Williams someone’s got to look after the environment and nature that sustains our existence 🤷‍♀️

Amy Jowers Blain except the independent environment analysis cleared this development and assessed it wouldn’t impact the native grassland.

Eben Leaf I mean, it absolutely will, we’re removing the trees and this tower can only go up if they plant trees to “hide it”, you wouldn’t plant trees in a Grasslands. We’ve got an ecological site assessment plan, funded by the government. It would seem that there is a disconnected government. There’s been poor community consultation and engagement. If you see the sure after the construction vehicles were in doing soil exploration it’s undeniable that it kills the grass, they compact the soil. We’re suggesting three alternatives that work better environmentally. One includes a completely destroyed part of the Grasslands, it’s a construction site, easy access, same telecoms outcomes – why not there 🤷‍♀️.

Amy Jowers Blain You keep saying “you wouldn’t plant trees in a Grasslands”. Are they going to plant trees in the grasslands, or near the grasslands?

Because it looks to me like there are already lots of trees on or near the site. Trees lining Limestone Ave and Quick Street, some trees on parts of what I think are the grasslands, and lots of trees on the back of the block between the grasslands and Ainslie Village.

Is part of your restoration plan to remove or have all those trees removed?

Christine’s Comments the Conservator would know that you would not plant trees around this tower which is very close to the Grasslands we’re restoring, leaf litter, shading, will all impact. Trees have been removed and will continue to be removed in line with the Ecological Assessment Site Plan by a qualified ecologist. Trees that are right near the planned tower site will ultimately be removed.

Amy Jowers Blain So you’re eventually going to remove all the trees from the grasslands, and you’re hoping to remove all trees near the grasslands, too? How far from the grasslands do you want to clearcut? The street trees along Limestone Ave and Quick Street? The trees along Hayley St going to Ainslie Village?

And presumably when (if?) the residential development on the next block ever gets built, there’s usually a requirement that they plant trees. Would your group be trying to stop the planting of those trees as well, or removing them after planting?

Amy Jowers Blain Oh wait, now I remember. It’s a grassland AND it’s a woodland, and it’s likely that the grassland formed after a lot of the box gums were removed. So of all the different ecosystems that have existed there over millions of years, your group apparently decided it should be a grassland, and set about “restoring” it as you saw fit. 🤔

Any chance the trees that will be planted around the tower site might be box gums?

Linny Hawkins it’s funny isn’t it, the same could be said of the company or government… We’ve offered multiple times to talk to them to discuss alternatives that give good outcomes for community, environment and telecoms. We absolutely want to discuss as adults, we’re meet with silence. This tower won’t actually benefit the majority of Ainslie residents, it will degrade further a site we’re restoring. It’s a Critically Endangered Grasslands, it’s legislated that state and Federal governments protect it because it’s a vital ecosystem and necessary for biodiversity. It’s a part of a block where the Grasslands have been destroyed already, it’s a construction site – it could easily have the tower there.

Linny Hawkins I think you’ll find many invitations have been made to tour the site and show what is at stake by constructing the tower at this location

Ramon Bouckaert then you’ll know too that the destroyed part of the Grasslands is now a seemingly abandoned building site, the tower could easily go there were is destroyed, not degraded. Definitely don’t object to it going there

Amy Jowers Blain I’d rather see 250 new homes built there as was originally planned.

Ramon Bouckaert absolutely! And the tower could go at the back without issue 🤷‍♀️

Amy Jowers Blain Literally in someone else’s backyard. Priceless! 🤣

Ramon Bouckaert With over 175,000 private dwellings in the city, plus commercial buildings, we seem to be getting plenty of things built. More homes would be nice, but it seems there are a lot more factors slowing that down than environmental regulations.

There’s nothing wrong with having reasonable regulations in place to help protect the environment. That said, we humans are part of the natural environment, too, and we all deserve to have a place to live (and work, play, etc), and that means altering the landscape to some extent. Some of us alter it more than others.

In this particular case, an advocacy group seems to have overstepped its role, and is now trying to introduce new laws to get what it wants. I think the Greens do a lot of good work, and I’m glad they’re representing our community in the Assembly, but in this case, I think they’ve gotten it wrong.

Christine’s Comments our site isn’t a backyard… It’s a Grasslands… Part of a Critically Endangered Natural Temperate Grasslands – which we’re seeking to restore. That part of the Grasslands is destroyed.

Christine’s Comments and it’s not anyone’s backyard 🤷‍♀️. Surely you prefer this to the site at the Village. It’s already a construction site

Christine’s Comments our role is to hold the government to account… What’s been overstepped here? And we would go to ACAT but it’s an unappealable decision. You’ll be interested to know that the government has not made any decisions in favour of the environment over development. Time for shifting priorities

Amy Jowers Blain No, your site isn’t a backyard, but the other site will be when the residential development is built.

Christine’s Comments that’s the total number of dwellings, which is a disingenuous figure to quote. We are not growing our housing stock at a fast enough rate to keep up with population growth.

If we indeed want to be environmentally friendly, we should be focusing that growth on the city centre rather than on Canberra’s fringe. This means densifying our inner suburbs, and it also means building the infrastructure required to support those new homes, like telecom towers. Committing to densification of inner suburbs is going to save a lot more habitat over the long term.

It would be interesting to compare the amount of anger over this small patch of inner-city grassland to other sites of the same grassland that don’t happen to be right near the activists’ homes. I reckon this is just NIMBYism masquerading as genuine environmental concern. This is not the first telecom tower that one of these activists has campaigned against.

The Greens are at their worst when they humour this behaviour. But some people will make any excuse for the Greens!

Ramon Bouckaert I agree that we should be densifying rather than building an endless suburban sprawl. I support the building of the tower in that location, and I agree that the activists and the Greens have got it wrong. I don’t think that means they always get it wrong, and that there should be no reasonable efforts made to protect the environment.

I don’t know where these activists live, but I’m guessing that they must live close enough that they think they should get to decide what happens to not only the grassland they’ve been working to restore, but also the area around it, and that none of the rest of us should have a say (unless maybe we agree with them).

I think it’s possible for people to be NIMBYs and to also have genuine environmental concerns, and I think that’s likely the case in this instance.

Christine’s Comments I’m glad you support the work of these volunteers, but so much of it will be destroyed through this construction process. It really doesn’t seem fair.

Susan Hutchinson The volunteers get to keep working on improving the grasslands. The community (presumably including the volunteers) gets better mobile phone service thanks to a tower built on a small section of land near the grasslands. That seems pretty fair to me.

If the construction crews are encroaching onto the grasslands, then hopefully the volunteers (and others) are able to move them off and keep them clear.

Christine’s Comments that sounds lovely. But trying to prevent construction crews encroaching on the grasslands is exactly what Amy was arrested for