Stephen Forbes: The concept of a green Adelaide under the Government’s current planning regime is bleak

ADELAIDE is actually at the bottom of the green ladder when it comes to tree canopy cover for the metropolitan area of any Australian capital city, writes Stephen Forbes.

IF you have a window seat flying into Adelaide you might be lucky enough to see the Adelaide Hills, the Parklands and the green canopy of trees that shelter us from our hot summers. How lucky we are to live in green Adelaide, a city with enviable urban forests. The more we hear the term “Green Adelaide” the more this perception becomes fact.

Instead, Adelaide is actually at the bottom of the green ladder when it comes to tree canopy cover for the metropolitan area of any Australian capital city. The leading capital cities are Hobart with 55 per cent, Brisbane with 43 per cent, Sydney with 36 per cent and Melbourne with 34 per cent. While some areas such as the Adelaide Hills have 40 per cent coverage, Adelaide overall comes in last with 27 per cent.

Let’s consider what trees offer us. Tree cover reduces urban temperatures by around 8C (reducing the cost of air conditioning), improves air quality, captures carbon and, by shading, protects assets from our unforgiving South Australian sunshine. Just as importantly trees bring beauty and comfort into our lives and neighbourhoods.

Building safe communities and healthy neighbourhoods is one of South Australia’s seven strategic priorities, which raises the question why the State Government has viewed trees as little more than a liability that create a barrier to development.

The significant tree provisions of the Development Act, introduced under former Liberal premier John Olsen in 2000, have been substantially diluted under subsequent Labor governments.

Costs associated with tree management are viewed as an impost - an opportunity for budget “improvements” and reducing the burden of taxes. By contrast, costs associated with managing buildings and grey infrastructure (roads, pipes and wires etc) are deemed essential. Sure, politicians are inclined to support the notion that trees are good. However, changes to the Development Act and to planning rules suggest that this State Government believes the housing market will find the best solutions for trees and serve the best interests of the community. Anyone who has driven along Churchill Road in Prospect in the last 18 months might wonder about the wisdom of such a belief.

The significant tree provisions of the Development Act, introduced under former Liberal premier John Olsen in 2000, have been substantially diluted under subsequent Labor governments.

Planning Minister John Rau authorised amendments which undermined tree protection in 2012 without any apparent changes to reflect public desire for a better solution. The decision to axe 83 significant and regulated trees from Glenside on the condition almost 200 semi-mature replacement trees were planted in their place provides an illustration of the problem. The misconceptions that a century of growth can be replaced by advanced container stock, that small trees can substitute substantial trees and that developments cannot incorporate existing trees seem difficult to shift.

The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide 2017 Update suggests the State Government has little appetite for enhancing urban tree canopy cover. It sets a goal of increasing cover by 20 per cent in metropolitan Adelaide by 2045.

This weak target will still leave Adelaide bottom of the green ladder and is unlikely to be achieved without a significant change in direction. Other changes introduced by Mr Rau have reduced the role of councils in development approvals. While the implications are yet to be fully realised, the state’s policy direction and planning rules haven’t boded well for tree and shrub cover. A study in 2016 found that 14 of Adelaide’s 19 metropolitan councils have shown a drop between 2013 and 2016, some with losses of up to 8 per cent.

The concept of a green Adelaide under the Government’s current planning regime is bleak. Perhaps there is a need for a revised 30-Year Plan supported by legislation focused on how to increase Adelaide’s tree cover.

We need to move to a future where trees are seen as critical infrastructure for a liveable, vibrant and healthy city.

Why not embrace the benefits trees offer and plan and manage them as effectively as, say, Singapore?

STEPHEN FORBES IS THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE BOTANIC GARDENS OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA