12 June 2025

Trees and Gang Gangs: ACAT lists golf club's unresolved environmental issues

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
3
render of proposed development

An artist’s impression of the proposed development. Up to 125 homes are planned. Image: GDH.

Federal Golf Club is taking ACAT’s refusal of a development application for its proposed retirement village to the ACT Supreme Court, but significant environmental issues raised in hearings remain unaddressed.

On 18 November last year, the Planning Authority approved a proposal for 125 dwellings, comprising 77 single-storey houses and 48 apartments across six three-storey buildings, as well as a health and wellbeing centre for residents on 6 hectares of the course.

Retirement village operator Mbark is partnering with the club to develop the site.

But in April, ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Senior Members David Kerslake and Lincoln Hawkins set aside the approval and later amended that to refuse the DA.

READ ALSO From stolen car parks to leaky pot plants, what really bugs your neighbours in community living

They have since published their reasons, with the DA falling over due to an administrative mistake – it only carried one signature, the club president’s, when two directors or a director and company secretary needed to sign.

However, the members said they would have sent the DA back to the Planning Authority in any case due to the environmental concerns raised by Friends of Federal Fairways, which is battling to prevent the village from being built.

This would have meant the Conservator of Flora and Fauna reviewing its original conditional green light for the proposal.

FOFF had raised several other issues that the members dismissed, but found inconsistencies between Mbark’s environmental assessment and the expert witnesses for FOFF, such as discrepancies in the counting of trees, particularly hollow-bearing ones for nesting birds, including the endangered Gang Gang cockatoo.

This involved the number of identified regulated trees, the height of certain trees, the nature and importance of tree hollows, the number of hollow-bearing trees that may be removed or affected by the development, the likely impact of removal, and the level of future hollow supply.

“The Tribunal considers the identification of nesting sites for endangered species to be an important environmental concern,” the members said.

They said the number of regulated trees appeared to well exceed the 109 described in the DA submission, when there were some 400 trees on and around the development site.

Gang-gang Cockatoos

ACAT says Gang Gang cockatoos’ nesting sites are a significant concern. Photo: Ian Fraser.

Mbark spent a day on the site with an officer of the Conservator, while FOFF’s arborist took a week and still felt rushed.

“We are concerned that the additional information and advice that was adduced in the course of the hearing through the evidence of expert witnesses, along with details of more recent and detailed site surveys, is significant and, if available to the Conservator, may have resulted in the Conservator providing an ESO [Environmental Significance Opinion] which was different in at least some respects from that issued in October 2022; and advice as part of the assessment of the Development Application, which was different in at least some respects,” the members said.

If the DA had gone back to the Planning Authority, they would have recommended that further advice be sought from the Conservator, including consideration of additional evidence and survey information presented at the hearing as well the conduct of any further surveys and assessments deemed necessary, as well as ongoing monitoring specific to the Gang Gang cockatoo.

It would also have allowed the Conservator and the Authority to review and reconsider the scope of the Commonwealth EPBC referral.

READ ALSO Re-installation of existing engineered stone allowed again in Canberra under conditional exemption

The club remains undeterred, telling members in its latest newsletter that it and Mbark are committed to the retirement village development and are advocating for their best interests and the club’s long-term future.

It describes the development as inevitable and accuses FOFF and a small number of members of jeopardising the club’s future by delaying the proposal.

“The Board’s primary focus over the coming weeks is to devise strategies to mitigate the significant financial risks that are a consequence of the delays in progressing with the over-55 development,” the newsletter says.

A virtually identical DA for the retirement village submitted under the new Planning Act is still being assessed, but whether ACAT’s concerns will be taken on board is not known.

That might not be necessary if the ACT Supreme Court finds in the club’s favour when its appeal is heard in September. Otherwise, the proposal could be headed for a re-run in ACAT.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

3
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The Gang Gang, Sulphur-crested, magpies and the ducks should all be encouraged to use Ingamells Street as a bird sanctuary and deposit their calling-cards from one end of the street to the other.

Especially the houses with FOFF corflutes.

The Kangaroos are welcome to do likewise. 🦘🐤🦆🦅🦜🕊

I don’t understand what you mean Penfold. I think you might be trying to say that you believe it is OK to develop housing without properly considering environmental impact.

Most of us in Canberra have a more considered and informed attitude than that. We think biodiversity is often concentrated where cities are, so we need to be careful about urban development. We think that our lives, and the lives of our descendents, will be richer to the extent we we can conserve biological diversity and enjoy nature near where we live.

The animal species most associated with Canberra is probably the Gang Gang. They are not found on some remote cliff in a Namadgi wilderness. They visit many of our homes in the suburbs. Thus the tree hollows where they breed are practically significant to all the people who live within their home range, not just to the people associated with the location of the breeding hollow. These breeding hollows should be treasured places that we destroy only in the most extreme case of need.

ScribblyGum you raise some interesting points. Of course we should be considering environmental impacts but it really boils down to priorities doesn’t it.

There’s plenty of examples in Canberra where the Gang Gang hasn’t been considered. Look for example at Molonglo which is prime Gang Gang space. Look at much of Gungahlin. The poor Gang Gang didn’t get much of a look in there. And places like the CSCC Yacht Club in Yarralumla surely wouldn’t have been built if the Gang Gang was the priority.

Federal has a range of animals including the Gang Gang, kangaroos, magpies and cockatoos. People walk their dogs at Federal, probably scaring the daylights out of the Kangas. Now these roos have pretty good lives but what when a big dog, say a Labrador is walking past – they love trying to chase a roo or bird. Should the government ban big dogs and their owners from walking the fairways to protect the Gang Gang and Kangas ?

Speaking of Labradors, some of the dog-owning FOFF members adjoining the 4th fairway don’t even provide a back fence to protect the local fauna. Surely there’s a fair bit of hypocrisy there, assuming the dog goes out the back at times. You’d think they’d build a fence, at their own expense of course, to protect the Gang Gang and Kangas.

As for the development, what is the footprint of threat to the Gang Gang compared to the size of the Red Hill Reserve ? Well it’s tiny.

And what of the motives of the FOFF crew ? Is it really about the Gang Gang, or is that just a mask ? They seem extraordinarily well funded – lawyers, lobbyists, wealthy developers – far more so than the struggling golf club. What is it they really seek ? Are they newly found environmentalists or are they more NIMBYs and those with commercial interests ? Some even supported the brutal horse racing industry for years, perhaps they’ve had mid-life environmental epiphanies. Though as for humans, FOFF seem to care more about signatures than privacy breaches. They even think, from their wealthy golf course abodes that they speak for all Canberrans.

Where are their priorities ScribblyGum, what’s the real story, can you help ?

The irony of course is that if the golf club folds, in a decade the whole course will become houses and apartments. Do you think they’ve even considered that ?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.