Tree Destruction in Ainslie

Grand project that will bring in some desperately needed aged care beds…interesting income spinner via the sale of ‘units’ to the Socialist Left Upwardly Mobile Ever-ageing Retirees(SLUMPERS) – sounds suspiciously like an enclave being developed here to shelter older folk from all the rowdy whippersnappers!

I’m sorry – this whole carry on still sounds like a childish hissy-fit.

When other Canberra residents feel strongly about the removal of trees and the alteration of the landscape near their homes for the construction of the GDE, the rest of us bag on them because their supposedly selfish and not thinking of the needs of all the Gungahlin residents who commute to Woden.

Now this time around, simply because an aged care facility wants to legally develop appropriate aged care facilities on its land (or land that it can legally access) so that cashed up baby-boomers can continue to live in the suburb of their choice in their old age – we flush out a bunch of trendy latte-sipping hypocrites.

Make no mistake this is NIMBYism in its purest form. The give away is the use of lines like “I’m not opposed to the development, just not in its present form…” where the term “… in its present form” actually means “Ainslie” and “…inappropriate height…” means “…will block my view…”.

Build a bridge and get over it.

On the other hand, Maelinar, if this became the FIRST method of contacting MLA’s, how would you feel about that? Just musing…

Dunno if it’s a last ditch attempt, but good on ’em. If you wanted to search though the ACT Planning Authority’s web-site to find out stuff for yourself, then you might have the time or resources to go through over 200Mb of files on their web site to do with the application – all with no titles or indexing. Just downloading the files would be beyond most people’s computer capacity.

Is Ainslieresident’s post an open letter to the Government ?

Has it been replicated in print or direct email ?

Whilst I am aware that MLA’s do read and post on this blog, I disagree that this is the appropriate forum to be posting open letters.

I am concerned that this is the last method of contacting MLA’s, and that the general public (can’t say I’ve seen Ainslieresident posting here vigourously in the recent past, but I’m new myself…) are using it in a last desperate attempt to get their point across directly to the people who are in a position of responsibility representing them.

Dear Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope and Minister for Planning Simon Corbell,
If this strand of magnificent atlas cedar’s planted in 1936 by Thomas Weston, the father of landscape architecture in Canberra, is not considered heritage and worthy of saving…what is?

I want to refer to a previous comment here by Simon Corbell that “tree damaging activity (such as incursions into the root zone ) does not mean the destruction of that tree.”

The tree damaging activity Simon refers to includes excavation of underground car parks close by (ie their root zone). If I were a betting man (I stick to the sweeps myself), then I would not put money on these magnificent old trees surviving those car parks. These trees are unique. They are seventy years old. Environment ACT told us today they will last 400 years if let to live. People should go down to Bonney Street in Ainslie and have a look at them. Then picture the three, four and six storey buildings either on top of them (yes, 43% of all significant trees on the site will be chainsawed) or potentially fatally damaging them so they will wither away and die anyway.

These are the last remaining stand of the original planting by Thomas Weston in 1936. All the others have been cut down or suffered from other developers’ tree damaging activity. Once they’re gone they can NEVER be replaced.

Surely Simon Corbell could help Goodwin find additional land in the Inner North for additional aged care places that wouldn’t kill the heritage values of one of our oldest suburbs. I would vote for that at the next election. I can’t say I would vote for a party that destroyed the heritage they were supposed to protect (remember it was the Labor Party that recommended Ainslie for the National Trust’s endangered suburbs list in the first place).

chris s i think you are misguided. now that the alp has majority govt they no longer need community consultation forums.

we have elected representatives to make these decisions. remember how bad the liberals were, well now we have simon and co, and theyre elected, so they are making decisions.

stand by for newly registered bloggers, prob from ainslie, to present us with evidence they think we need to know.

i still cant drag my car legally. where were you then you nimby bastards!

How about keeping it at 6 storeys – just putting 4 of those in the basement?

On a more serious note, good discussion guys and thanks to Minister Corbell for putting in his two cents worth.

One other thing, I’ve had a flamin Alf Stewart gutful of people using the term Nimby to downplay anyone’s right to protest something going on in their community. It’s a classic rightwing tactic of shifting the focus of debate from the issue at hand by casting aspersions on the motivations of those protesting. It’s pissy and transparent.

I support Ainslieresident. I think this seven storey development is totally wrong for Ainslie, stuck in amongst little old houses – and the heritage trees. I suggestleaving it in Ainslie but keeping it much much smaller (and soley for aged care), or putting it on Northbourne Ave, or perhaps on the site of the Kurrong flats in Civic (the ones that are to be demolished). I will never believe in this government again if this disaster proceeds.
ps – I don’t live in Ainslie. I did as a student though, and at the time I thought it embodied Canberra as the Bush Capital.

Chris S, you are being a slightly delicate little flower, methinks. ‘Ainslieresident’ has (quite rightly) entered the public debate and I think the whole talkfest has proceeded in a civilised fashion throughout the day…with ainslieresident’s like-minded correspondents actually put up some quite good arguments. Call me naive, but I’d say the discussion has got Simon thinking hard, to judge by his comments.

Well Roland,
Thank God we have Deb Foskey and the Greens to inject some sense into the ACT planning process and help modify really damaging and inappropriate development. It’s almost unbelievable that a development this large and this controversial could get to this stage without proper community consulatation (and no Simon Corbell I do not think talking to the Retirees Network through the NCCC qualifies as adequate consulation). Wouldn’t a proper consultation process help avoid planning disasters such as Karralika and now Goodwin in Ainslie?

(Greens)Deb Foskey’s position on this one has been that this redevelopment was acknowledged by Goodwin Homes themselves, a year out from development Application, as likely to be contentious – given the scale (and it turns out various other aspects such as Heritage Trees, overshadowing of public housing).

Therefore it would have been better to let everyone in the neraby part of the suburb know what they are in for in an inclusionary way; not merely do the minimal mandatory notification process.

The Karralika expansion in Fadden has run into snags partly because people were surprised at the impact of the proposed development.

This is the same story here.

Good point Mr Weavil, and I would add that a lot of elderly people prefer to remain close to where they have always lived anyway, so suburban units are a good idea in more ways than one.

Bulldoze those horrible ACT Housing Apartments all along Northbourne Ave, then there would be more than enough space for Goodwin’s Empire!

Simon Corbell,
What I can’t understand is why the one suburb of Ainslie has to bear the brunt of aged-care provision? Why can’t a much smaller sensible facility be placed in each suburb – one in Downer, one in Lyneham, one in Dickson etc? This would fix resident concerns and save the absolutely beautiful tress on the Ainslie block. Alternatively if the developer wants such a massive facility why not build it along Northbourne avenue? Afterall Goodwin is spending $90 million – they can probably afford to put it anywhere.

I think a few of you are being a bit tough on an Ainslie resident who is raising some legitimate concerns. There are quite a few issues associated with any significant development within an established area, even more so when the proposal is one that could be classed as a “public good”. When a development is for profit, then the boundaries are quite easy to draw; when not-for-profit, and when as in this case, it relates to badly needed services and infrastructure, then it becomes very difficult to mount a case for moderation in scale.

The argument that the Federal government insists on a certain number of beds has been trotted out in the past (the last time was for the Southern Cross Homes in Garran). It’s a very convenient argument, and one that’s impossible to challenge.

Ainlieresident has raised just one issue, and a number of others have been referred to in these posts, particularly by Stickman. The underlying problem is that a significant development is being proposed within a leafy, inner north suburb with insufficient account being taken by the developer, ACTPLA and the Minister. Seven-storey Simon is intent on reducing community consultation – abolition of LAPACs (replaced by the inappropriate community councils), so called streamlining of DAs, constant use of call-in powers, etc all show a very strong pro-development approach, and a growing anti-resident culture within the government and ACTPLA.

As Ainslieresident, and many others in the community, realise that any say that they may have in proposals like this that adversely affect them are quickly disappearing, then they feel that they need to use every possible argument that they can to moderate its impact. Hence seizing on the tree issue.

Anyone adversely affected by government decisions, whether it be IR legislation, terror laws, voluntary union fees, etc should have the right to enter public debate, have their views respected and heard, and the opportunity to influence the outcome. Simon Corbell has forgotten that, as have a few on the Riotact list, I think.

Cheers.

Stickman is right too. Simon, “unobtrusive, sympathetic buildings that address the issue – aged care beds” would be great. Using the existing footprint of the Ainslie Goodwin village, or maybe a tad more, and no more than two storeys, would certainly give the numbers of aged-care beds a real boost, without destroying heritage areas – or trees. It’s like I tell my grandson, “keep your feet on the ground, son, but your heart in the universe”.

Simon, sorry, but I was lead to believe that Goodwin Village wasn’t a-not-for-profit organisation.

I still think their development is dodgy and isn’t in the best interests of anyone.

P.S: I don’t live in Ainslie: I live in Belco, in case anyone wants to brand me a NIMBY!

Thank you Simon. As I have stated I recognise the need for aged care places. I just don’t see that those not responsible for the need i.e the average joe ratepayer, has to pay the price by having a multi-storey complex which will strain the existing and planned infrastructure built in a suburb which currently has a cap of 2 storey buildings on it (and contains heritage listed precincts). By all means, redevelop Goodwin as there is plenty of room for additional beds but let’s do it with unobtrusive, sympathetic buildings that address the issue – aged care beds.

Stickman, no “may” about it, Goodwin is a not for profit organisation. I should also stress that regardless of whether they are or not their application is being cloesly examined and considered. In considering whether or not to determine the application myself, I am paying close attention to local residents concerns, as well as the broader community interest. In particular concerns about the height of the buildings is a matter I am considering carefully. The Federal Government does not lightly extend deadlines for bed funding. The real issue here though is that there is a high level of need in our community for additional aged care places, and this is why Goodwin have requested I consider calling the proposal in. In relation to Aged Person Units it is worth mentioning that these are a particular type of unit for older people, who are still able and active but wish to live in a “retirement community” which provides a broad range of care options as they age. These units cannot be held on seperate (unit) title and are therefore very different from standard residential apartments. It is common practice across Australia for payment of bonds for the use of these units to be used to cross subsidise the capital costs of the Residential Aged Care beds.

Sorry terubo – wrong again. When you can’t manage to look after yourself, you’re supposed to stay in your apartment and buy-in services (from Goodwin naturally). When you die, and Goodwin manages to sell the unit again, your estate even gets 50% of the capital gains (the other goes to Goodwin). Isn’t this grand – you can sit in your own place, paying for air-conditioning (the trees have gone, remember), happy that you’ve diddled those conniving relatives out of any inheritance, and eat nice TV meals-on-wheels. What a pity I’m down for Morshead.

Thanks, stickman and oldsoldier. It does sound kind of smart. Presumably the idea is, that when the sprightly 55-year olds become (even more)decrepit, they can sell back their high-rise unit to Goodwin (at a nice price) and then move downstairs to subsidised “sheltered” accomodation until they kark it. Sounds like everyone’s a winner apart from the tree-lovers.

future-proofing aged care by situating 3 young people above every old person in a housing complex ?

I’m starting to like this deal again…

Actually, that reeks of smart planning. Someone has had a good idea, it’s just the implementation that needs a bit of work.

Terubo – I seem to recall the CEO of Goodwin saying at the public meeting at the Ainslie football club, that this “resort-style” development of high-rise apartments [Independent Living Units in the jargon] was intended as buy-in accomodation for 55+ year-olds. Guess in the case of fire they could grab their golf clubs and jewellery and scurry downstairs? Sure, Goodwin works as a non-profit organisation … but someone has to pay for the other residents and any future developments. That’s why the expensive apartments. Saves the government a heap too.

terubo, the remaining will be 170 “aged persons units”. I cannot find a definition of “aged persons” but I believe it to be anyone over 55 as it applies to this proposal. Again, I don’t know (maybe Simon Corbell does) whether anyone of any age can buy these units, and I assume that only people 55+ can live there. Effectively these units are a block of flats for older people, many of whom won’t need care of any sort for a long time. I welcome 1 or 2 storey buildings for genuine aged care, which is sorely needed. I don’t welcome multiple storey units for spritely 55 year olds riding on the back of that need.

Simon Corbell, Goodwin may be registered as a not for profit entity but their proposal certainly seems to err on the money spinning side, what with only 108 beds being for aged care, their argument that a minimum of 4 storeys is required for better lift efficiencies and the plan for commercial properties on site. For a not for profit organisation they are certainly chafing at the bit to get approval, citing a Federal deadline that the Federal Govt has said they will extend for circumstances outside Goodwin’s control. Mr Corbell, listen to the community – voters – not commercial developers. They just want a fair deal, consultation and a view that does not include a 6 storey building. That’s why they live where they do.

stickman, if you’re right that “only 108 beds of their vaunted 350 bed development will be for aged care”, then that’s to be welcomed insofar as one hopes they are at – or near – ground level.
But who gets to doss down in the other 242? It is “Goodwin Aged Care” isn’t it?
I note that Senor Corbell doesn’t address the wisdom or otherwise of the high-rise issue…

This brings me to a personal gripe I have. I have searched the ACT Government’s regulations and legislation regarding heritage listings and protection for trees, and all I’ve come up with is some scrappy legislation dealing with Indigenous Issues.

While I believe that Indigneous Issues are applicable and justifyable, leaving that issue right behind, where is the legislation for anything NOT Indigenous ?

In the case of Australia, we’re now looking at places of cultural significance to 4th and 5th generation (white) australians, which would include Atlas Cedars planted by Weston in the 1930’s.

Whilst I think it’s about time to revise ‘Australian’, it’s not my intent to bring it up here, although it seems to me that anything that is NOT under an Indigenous protection scheme is fair game for the government to bulldoze at this present time.

If what Oldsoldier said is true, and these cedars are a remaining patch of vegetation planted in the 1930’s, just what protection are they afforded ?

In my opinion, it moves the argument regarding the trees from ‘Significant’ to ‘Heritage’.

Don’t know what you guys (or your fathers) fought for but ‘fair go’ seems about right to me. Ainslieresident is right to question dodgy development proposals and does not deserve to be called a NIMBY because of it. A close inspection of the Goodwin development proposal shows that it’s full of vague half-truths and evasions when not downright lies. The trees under threat are some of the last Atlas cedars planted by Weston in the 1930s (and these trees CAN live for 300 years). So give the protestors a break and leave some heritage for our children and children’s children – it’s what we fought for.

Mr Evil, Goodwin is a not for profit entity recognised as such in law, suggestions that the Goodwin proposal is motivated by profit are unfair, and simply wrong.

I’m sure you will use those call in powers Simon; you seem to be addicted to them.

My personal feelings are that Goodwin likes to portray an image of caring for the elderly, when all this development reeks of is increasing the profit margin by jamming more people in! I agree with terubo about the unsuitability of a six story building as a retirement home: I wouldn’t like to be there if a fire broke out! It all sounds a lot more like battery-farming for elderly people, and if this is the way of the future, then I’m just soooo looking forward to becoming 80!

The destruction of trees is only part of the Goodwin Aged Care whitewash. Ainslie residents don’t oppose the redevelopment, they support it but not in it’s current form. Goodwin paints a pretty picture but only 108 beds of their vaunted 350 bed development will be for aged care. Residents object to the construction of a 6 storey building in a suburban setting that overlooks a declared heritage area. They object to the lack of consultation with the community and they don’t like the fact that Goodwin promotes statements that their plan has overwhelming community support based on a meeting with a wholly unrepresentative community group. Are are all these Ainslie sledgers just glad that the high rise is not going up in their backyard?

But what about the trees that were removed to use put in the “ainslieresidents” place? No complaining then I bet. I am sure the developer will leave whatever trees possible because it is cheaper that buying new ones.

Would an alternative such as carbon-credit trading be applicable at this juncture ?

Certainly if the residents of the old peoples home are dissatisfied with their surrounds (without it becoming a beautification project), they could regenerate it with federally avaliable funding. I’m sure that such initiatives are indicative, and also supported by, our local government level of support for environmental works.

Will there be, or is there a facility to impose, planting requirements on the construction of the OPH (old peoples home, not the white building in Barton) ?

Ainslieresidents’ claim that I think the proposed tree removal at Goodwin Ainslie is OK fails to acknowledge that I have not commented on this issue to date. In fact, my view is that tree protection should be considered very carefully, and as many trees as possible should be retained on site. Clearly this must be balanced with the
need to increase the availability of aged care accomodation. The relevant legislation has a requirement that all feasible design alternatives have been considered and exhausted before tree removal is proposed. This highlights the considered and detailed assesment that is done for all tree removal matters. Further, it is worth highlighting that tree damaging activity ( such as incursions into the root zone ) does not mean the destruction of that tree. It means that steps must be taken to ensure the tree does survive the disturbance. I have been asked to consider approving this application directly, through use of my call in powers, and I am cureently considering the issue.

What a crock – all that the significant tree legislation does is ensure that a considered decision is made about the management of larger / more mature trees. “Significant” just means that they are either 12m or more higher or have a trunk circumference (measure at chaest height) or 1500mm or more – or somthing like that. Any opposition to the removal of such trees for the development of an otherwise worthwile facility is simply a whingy little hissy-fit. But claiming that allowing the removal of threes is somehow hypocritical on the part of the government simply beggars belief – what kind of dip-stick would seriously argue that a Government dosnt have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to enforce its own legislation?

typical nimby.

rip rip woodchip.

plant a few more trees somewhere else.

i note that it is concerned with trees in ainslie but not too concerned about trees in say the molonglo valley.

but the tree issue is just a stalking horse for the anti-development agenda. im not sure that having a multi-storey old folks home is going to lower the tone of the nieghbourhood. i think its teh sort of development that canberra need. place the old folks in the middle of communities, instead of on the edge away from existing facilities.

like the one thats going up on teh edge of lake ginninderra.

wait until monkey bike riders start skittling old folks on walking frames making their way towards westfield on the bike path.

perhaps concerned ainslie resident could email STR for some advice.

complete rubbish.

Clarification my ass. This tree argument is just a classic NIMBY tactic from someone who doesn’t want the retirement home expanded.
What “ainslieresident’ SHOULD be campaigning against, is the notion that retirement villages can be 6-storeys high (or whatever it is): it’s just ludicrous to put ageing punters into high-rise accomodation….half of them wouldn’t even venture out of their rooms, let alone barrel their way down to the ground-floor dining room.
-Expand the village laterally, not vertically; OK, a few more hundred trees may have to go, but hey…read my first comment above.

Thanks for the clarification.

Where I come from, if a tree is in your way, you plant another few in an appropriate place and buzz your way through the inappropriate one.

But then again, trees grow like weeds where I come from.

They do have ‘protected’ trees, however they are the kind of trees that are 600 years old kind of trees.

That said, now that I know of this ‘significant’ tree issue, it does look like a double standard is being applied.

100 trees ?

Is that all ?

OK they are established flora, however 100 trees is a blip in the proverbial ocean. I think my wife has planted nearly that many trees in our garden alone, and they have a higher chance of survival in our garden.

I think the sacrifice of 100 trees is justifyable as detailed in terubo’s comment.

Put it this way: either the trees go and retirement villages get expanded, or our suburban laneways and pavement cafes become cluttered with malodorous, shambling ageing baby-boomers who are shortly to hit incontinent senility in their tens of thousands. And you want to save the trees?