Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

Tree Destruction in Ainslie

By ainslieresident - 31 October 2005 55

At the proposed redevelopment at Goodwin Village in Ainslie, 107 significant trees have been identified.

46% of all significant trees will be removed, another 38% will be damaged by development activity. How does this equate with Stanhope’s new tree protection legislation?

On 20 September 2005 the Chief Minister John Stanhope outlined New Laws to Protect Canberra’s Trees:
“Generations of Canberrans have planted and nurtured the beautiful trees that distinguish our city …

• Tree Management Precincts will protect areas which have high development pressure and high heritage value… Trees within Tree Management Precincts which meet certain criteria – for example being 12 metres tall or taller – will be protected trees”.

At the proposed redevelopment at Goodwin Village in Ainslie

107 significant trees have been identified (ACTPLA definition of significant). The plans detail that

46% of all significant trees will be removed
38% will be damaged by development activity [root damage etc]

Of 16% that will not be affected most are on the nature strip. [DA submission dated 24 June 2005]

Simon Corbell thinks this is OK!

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
55 Responses to
Tree Destruction in Ainslie
oldsoldier 11:58 am 01 Nov 05

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.

Simon Corbell 11:38 am 01 Nov 05

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.

Mr Evil 11:32 am 01 Nov 05

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!

stickman 11:19 am 01 Nov 05

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?

T_Bone 10:54 am 01 Nov 05

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.

Maelinar 10:41 am 01 Nov 05

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) ?

Simon Corbell 10:29 am 01 Nov 05

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.

Big Al 9:25 am 01 Nov 05

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?

bonfire 8:52 am 01 Nov 05

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.

ssanta 8:27 am 01 Nov 05

complete rubbish.

terubo 8:22 am 01 Nov 05

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.

Maelinar 7:04 am 01 Nov 05

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.

Thumper 6:52 am 01 Nov 05

The issue here is not the overall wellbeing of the trees, but the double standards being applied.

I ask you, if you had a gum tree in your yard that threatened to fall on your house one day, and was deemed significant, would Corbell allow it?

I doubt not.

however, if you are a developer with ashit load of money, no problems….

Maelinar 6:46 am 01 Nov 05

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.

terubo 4:50 am 01 Nov 05

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?

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site