Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Special Provisions) Bill 2008
Objectives:
The objective of the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Special Provisions) Bill 2008 is to amend the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 to confirm that the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 has a biodiversity certification under that Act. The bill also amends the Local Government Act 1993 to make it clear that, for local government rating purposes, where part of a parcel of land is the subject of a conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, the rate payable on the whole parcel is to be proportionately reduced.
Comments:
In December 2007, the New South Wales Government moved to exempt the north-west and south-west growth centres from the Threatened Species Act by giving the growth centres State environmental planning policy biodiversity certification. The certification allowed key environmental issues across the region to be addressed in a single major decision. It removed the need to bog down individual housing developments in endless red tape. Unnecessary red tape means that development applications often take from nine to 12 months to be resolved. The extra costs imposed by the delay can add up to 15 per cent of total project costs.
The Sydney region growth centres State environmental planning policy establishes a broad framework for future development in the growth centres in south-west and north-west Sydney. Biodiversity certification provides the means by which to focus on protecting the largest and most viable remnants of endangered vegetation by locating them away from areas of intense urban development. Biodiversity certification removes the need for each separate development in the growth centres to comply with the threatened species assessment and concurrence provisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 because biodiversity assessment has occurred instead assessment at the landscape level. It gives a green tick to the release of new land to market, with the first stage of releases to provide a minimum of 40,000 new homes. The biodiversity certification package ensures protection for 2,000 hectares of bushland within the growth centres.
More than 50 per cent of all high-quality native vegetation will be protected, even as more than 200,000 people move into the areas over the next 25 years. The package delivers an outstanding conservation investment program that has ever been associated with development in Western Sydney. Developers will be required to contribute towards a $530 million program over coming decades to secure high-conservation value bushland for the construction of a string of reserves, national parks and conservation agreements within and outside the Sydney region growth centres. This new approach is the only viable option if we are to conserve our unique Cumberland Plain ecosystems for future generations. If the legal challenge currently underway were to succeed, the critical and exceptional benefits of the new approach would be lost.
In the current court case, True Conservation Association v The Minister Administering the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the True Conservation Association [TCA] is challenging the decision by the Minister to grant biodiversity certification to State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006. The effect of biodiversity certification is that species impact statements no longer need to be carried out for individual development applications in the area covered by the growth centres State environmental planning policy. The True Conservation Association believes that in this case biodiversity certification was granted prematurely, and was based on inadequate information. The plan will result in clearing of 1,856 hectares of some of the rarest vegetation communities in the State. Approximately 16 threatened plant species and 22 threatened fauna species will suffer a loss of habitat as a result of the planned development under the growth centres State environmental planning policy.
If the legal action is successful, it will put at risk investment plans for the growth centres of Western Sydney. The North West Growth Centre is a 10,000-hectare area in Baulkham Hills, Blacktown and Hawkesbury council areas. Ultimately, it will have 66,000 new homes—a population that is equivalent to a city the size of Wollongong. The South West Growth Centre is a 17,000-hectare area in the Liverpool, Camden, and Campbelltown council areas and it will ultimately have 115,000 new homes—in other words, a population that is equivalent to a city the size of Canberra.
The Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Special Provisions) Bill 2008 will remove any doubts about the validity of the biodiversity certification granted in December last year. Without this special legislation, plans for new homes in Sydney’s west will be further delayed. However, I will take a moment to raise the concerns raised by environmental and conservation groups that the Christian Democratic Party has consulted, that have consulted us, and that have raised some issues.
First, regarding land use, recreation and environment conservation zones in part 3, the three zones are environment conservation, regional public recreation, and local public recreation, and they are acceptable. However, the land use table has serious failings. In the case of environment conservation it allows, first, development for public utility installation without consent; second, a range of recreation facilities with consent, including restaurants, which appear to envisage intensive built forms that can be contrary to environment protection.
The two further zones also allow these uses and there appears to be no difference in the permitted activities. The question that arises is: Why bother having the three zones? Clearly the with consent and without consent provisions should vary according to the environmental sensitivity of the land. A further grave problem occurs with clause 13, which allows any other development to be carried out in the zones, if prescribed in schedule 2. This nullifies the entire exercise of having zones with a table and I believe that should be removed. The schedule process also is likely to have minimal or no public consultation, and will entrench a practice of overnight changes in response to vested interests.
Clauses 14 and 15 attempt to establish a capture process whereby land that is zoned as I have already described, but that also has existing zoning and development rights under a pre-existing environmental planning instrument, which would conflict with the new environmental or recreational objectives. That has muddied the water and really needs to be clarified by the Minister. If the relevant public authority refuses concurrence to the proposed development, then the owner may trigger purchase of the land, unless it is required for public open space, or, in the case of environmental zones land, a swap can be made.
The critical issue here is whether the funds will be available when they are needed. It is understood that developer contributions are to be collected, but to date there is no firm arrangement for the collection of this money. If the funds fall through, the destruction of environmental values becomes most likely. There is no stated role for the Department of Environment and Climate Change in vetting the whole process. That seems to me to present quite a conflict between government departments.
Second, regarding general development controls in part 4, clause 16 details matters for consideration for development applications prior to a precinct plan. While the matters seek to prevent serious pre-emption of orderly precinct planning, they do nothing to ensure urban environmental sustainability. These matters are different to the lands involved in part 3, which are not covered by this clause. They relate to sustainable and effective transport, water and energy systems through corridors and urban design. There is also the problem with the amount of low-density housing eventually allowed. The bigger the percentage, the greater is the extent of vegetation clearing. Future development controls should be empowered by the State environmental planning policy to maximize vegetation protection. There is also a problem with the extent of low-density housing allowed.
Third, regarding development controls for flood prone land, major creeks, and vegetation, parts 5 and 6 are potentially the most destructive of the natural environment. They apply not only to environmental protection, recreation, flood prone and major creeks but also transition lands that are intended for nature conservation.
The parts list a number of matters for consideration, which supposedly target retention of water flows and vegetation values. The use of the term “consideration” is weak and impotent, and is in stark contrast to the much stronger term “is satisfied” that is used in clause 18 regarding water recycling. Further, the vegetation controls in part 6 do not apply to native vegetation that is dying or dead or has become dangerous. What does “dying” mean with regard to vegetation? There are no guides as to what is “dangerous”. These are major loopholes, and the Minister must clarify these issues.
It is notable that the vegetation clearing rules that apply to farmers under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 are ditched for urban development. There is also no mention of the intention that precinct planning will give preference to vegetated areas for regional and local open space so that remaining native vegetation is brought into public ownership. The proposed SEPP zonings provide little protection for existing vegetation. It is clear that the habitat of many threatened species will be lost and large areas of endangered ecological communities will be cleared. There is no use of vegetation corridors to protect remnant vegetation. Restoration of existing areas has been ignored in the draft SEPP.
Of the existing native vegetation in the growth centres, it appears that only about 20 per cent will lie in any form of conservation, while up to 40 per cent lies in areas where there are weak vegetation controls and development is permitted. Areas that are designated as conservation areas have been poorly selected and designed. Conservation areas reflect ease of delivery of development and have ignored conservation requirements. Environmental groups have argued that the development of SEPP has not considered the broader planning context of Western Sydney to incorporate what is needed to assist with species recovery and landscape conservation. The measures recommended in recovery plans for ecological communities such as the Cumberland Plains Woodland and the threatened species recovery plan seem to have been ignored.
Conclusion:
I am torn by this bill, having on the one hand received excellent guidance from the Minister’s office but, on the other hand, having listened to people such as Andrew Cox of the National Parks Association and a number of other lobby groups who have approached me about the bill. I am torn between my desire to see more land released to allow housing and to help drive down the land costs artificially driven up by a lack of availability of land for development.
And yet, I know that once open for development the State will lose forever fragile vegetation that is found in the five or six unique areas mentioned by the previous speaker. Once lost, that can never be recovered. I only hope that the increase in the cost of living in the Sydney Basin will drive more people to consider lower-cost living in regional and rural areas, where they might find a highly desirable lifestyle that suits their families.
I intend to vote for the bill, in spite of the concerns I have raised. However, I will do so with my fingers crossed, with my eyes crossed, and with my legs crossed.
