Irreversible change: the Albert Hall stop. Photos: ACT Government.
The National Trust ACT has blasted the draft EIS for Light Rail Stage 2B for paying lip service to the acknowledged damage the project will do to Canberra’s heritage.
In its submission on the draft EIS, the National Trust laments how it identifies the project’s impacts on heritage values in the National Triangle, particularly on Commonwealth Avenue, but says little on how to lessen them.
The National Trust says the EIS’s recommendations weren’t specific enough and lacked the rigour needed to guarantee robust protection of heritage assets.
“There is a clear gap between identification of risks and the implementation of enforceable mitigation strategies,” it says.
“This disconnect underscores a recurring issue where heritage concerns are acknowledged but not substantively addressed within project design or subsequent decision-making.”
The National Trust identifies a broader systemic problem in which infrastructure projects are prioritised over the conservation of heritage values that uniquely reflect Canberra and its history.
Despite EIS calls for thorough assessments and consultation, there appears to be little in the way of binding commitments, potentially reducing ‘consultation’ to a mere procedural formality, it says.
“As a result, the integrity of significant places may be incrementally eroded, undermining the community’s trust in both the process and the project,” the National Trust says.
It says that without clearly defined thresholds, transparent mitigation requirements, and ongoing monitoring, the balance between modern development and cultural stewardship remains precarious.
“The Stage 2B EIS thus serves as both a warning and a call to action: unless heritage and cultural values are fully embedded in every stage of planning, Canberra risks losing elements of its unique identity in the pursuit of progress at all costs,” the National Trust says.
A bird’s eye view of the centre light rail bridge.
It sees the draft EIS’s main failure as the insufficient safeguarding of Canberra’s significant views, such as the vistas around Lake Burley Griffin and to the Brindabellas, and landscapes.
Key sightlines will be blocked or altered, diminishing the visual and cultural significance of early landmarks and expressions of the Griffin Plan for Canberra, the National Trust says.
The removal of the current trees and formal replanting, and the building of a light rail station at Albert Hall will irreversibly change the character of the area from the Hall to Hotel Canberra.
The light rail stops are expected to partially encroach on heritage-listed boundaries, and how much construction vibration will affect significant buildings such as Albert Hall, the Museum of Australian Democracy Old Parliament House, Hotel Canberra and others is not clear.
It is also not clear how trees will cope even if they are not located directly along the route, the National Trust says.
Work on the new middle span of the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge to carry light rail could damage the original heritage-listed bridge.
The new span could also compete with the bridge’s heritage values.
If the Barton route is selected, the vistas of the Old Parliament House setting will be affected in the long term by a track along King George Terrace.
Construction work is expected to disrupt access to heritage sites for significant periods.
National Trust ACT president Gary Kent said the Trust’s focus was on heritage issues and not on whether the Light Rail Stage 2B was an appropriate transport strategy.
“That’s not really our role, and the matter has been addressed in successive elections,” he said.
“It seems that work will not commence until after the 2028 ACT election, and the electorate may face opposing party positions on whether it should proceed.”
Mr Kent said that at present, there was an information gap about how the acknowledged impacts would be dealt with.
“If, after further consultation and provision of further information, we find that the heritage impacts are simply too great, we might reconsider our decision not to oppose but, if so, it would of course be on heritage grounds,” he said.
