A Lyneham couple has clashed with the ACT government after it stopped their bid to remove a tree that dropped branches near their asbestos sheeted roof.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
When a branch fell from the Arizona smooth bark cypress tree on their property last year, Tara Williams and her partner Alec Wickerson decided to have it removed, fearing another might drop and disturb the hazardous material.
The government rejected the move in September and began a stoush that went to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Thursday where the couple argued the tree posed a danger to their home and the public.
Ms Williams also raised her disapproval of the government's failure to disclose it used an arborist to examine the tree who later worked for the same business the couple had sought advice from.
The government had subpoenaed documents about the tree from the business, she said.
However Ms Williams said she and Mr Wickerson didn't believe the government's conduct had been "nefarious".
"On the face of it, it doesn't look very good, and the way things look are very important," she said.
"It was deeply upsetting to me."
Lawyer Kristy Katavic, representing the Conservator of Flora and Fauna, told tribunal presidential member Elizabeth Symons that the conservator's handling of the rejection should not influence her findings.
"However imperfectly or badly they handled the decision, it doesn't mean it's wrong," she said.
Mr Wickerson, who wants the cypress tree removed for safety reasons, told the tribunal it was unclear how the government had made its decision and that the hearing on Thursday had left him more confused.
"This is not the way that government should contest with a citizen in an administrative matter when the citizen has done nothing more than ask the government to take a reasonable decision that, in my view, is fully supported under legislation," he said.
"I don't want to be here today. This process has been stressful, time-consuming and difficult for me and my family. At times, I have questioned why I have pursued this matter to this point.
"What I keep coming back to though is I am here because I care, I care about my kids, my neighbours and I care about good government processes and decision making."
If one tile was damaged, the house's entire roof would need replacing, costing $50,000 or more, he said.
Mr Wickerson said the government had taken a "legalistic" approach opposing their application and argued the tree was not in a heritage area, nor a prominent place, and was not exceptional.
Ms Katavic said the tree was healthy and there was no heaving at the ground level to show it was stressed, nor any movement indicating it was unstable.
"We can't elevate a threat in terms of speculation and what might happen," she said.
The tree and house had long co-existed without problems, and storm damage or tradesmen could also disturb the asbestos, Ms Katavic said.
"That disturbance is always a factor relevant to whatever else exists around the house."
The cypress tree did not pose an unacceptable risk, did not threaten substantial damage to the roof, and pruning would address Ms Williams and Mr Wickerson's fears, she said.
Ms Katavic also argued a building inspector had advised the couple in 2009 that the asbestos was a hazard and could be disturbed, suggesting they had not acted before.
The tribunal reserved its decision.
